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

hard rain

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    I ve been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard, And it s a hard rains gonna fall. I often find that at this list, other than Bill, the view of
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 17, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      "I've been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard,
      And it's a hard rains gonna fall."

      I often find that at this list, other than Bill, the view of violence
      is not existential. Violence occurs in signifigant numbers somewhere
      within the planetary dispersion of the human species every single
      second that goes by. Violence is a fact of human existence. An
      existentialist cannot adapt a pacifist stance simply because violence
      is intrinisic to the facticity of being human. Until it is not,
      pacifism must be left to the deluded, the religious, the idealist, the
      less than human. This is not to say that the existentialist may not
      love peace. He may love peace, but he may not hate violence without
      hating him/herself, without hating the species. Such a disposition
      often forces the existentialist into pointless arguments. It simply
      cannot be argued that violence, and a capacity for violent acts, is
      not an intrinisic quality of the human species. This is not skepticism
      at work here, just facticity. I love this planet. I love this species
      wholly, and I love being alive as a human being. I embrace the quality
      of violence that exists in both in that love regardless of the
      consequences. Love is essentially not pragmatic toward anything in its
      embrace, yet this lack of pragmatic consideration is in itself
      pragmatic toward the one loving in that the one loving is engaged in
      accepting and recognizing a whole other. The one loving then cannot
      exclude essential parts of the human other, or him/herself. Loving
      then is not an idealistic action, but rather an activity detached of
      idealism all together. It is just an ongoing process of recognizing
      the whole human being. For the existentialist violence is intrinsic to
      the human species. It is not a matter in need of justification. Taking
      it as in need of justification puts it immediately into the service of
      the idealogue. All idealism, including pacifism panders to violence.
      The idealogue believes that violence brings change. It does not. At
      best it brings bio-chemical and cosmic forces into a syncretistic
      settlement for specific numbers of people for a specific time. The
      people remain violent. They are simply tuned and directed by
      idealogical purpose. Such settlements can never be lasting; first
      because ideology is an overlay, actually a construct to manipulate
      violent people; second because the process of evolution is violent;
      third because the human species is violent and literate, thus arguably
      done with the constructive self-destruction of evolution at least as
      far as this planetary set of chemical resonances is concerned.
      Essentially evolution on this planet is a stepped process of temporary
      settlements toward a permanent settlement: the random bio-chemical
      violence of the cosmos toward an exhaustion of possibility, an end. To
      be sure it is a ribbon of development tied to a planet, but for this
      planet, it is likely that the human species is its end. We record the
      reflection. Consider a pacifist bio-chemist. If he were to design a
      bio-chemical solution to circumvent violence in the human being; what
      would the human race become? In a Heideggerian sense I think a tool.
      What hand then would hold or have need of the tool? What hand indeed.

      "I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,
      And it's a hard rain's gonna fall."

      There has never been a soundly proposed argument against human
      violence, yet most educated people labor under the fallacy that ending
      or limiting violence in the species is good for the future of the
      species. Evolution arguably indicates otherwise. Looking to the
      natural history of the development of the human race we may not
      discount the goodness of violence. We have filled up the planet. Now,
      in the pattern of all terrestial biological things; we have thrived to
      the apparent limitations of the ecological system. The consequences
      seem inevitable: the thinning of the herd to preserve the grass. The
      problem is: it is not naturally good human violence that has brought
      us to this point, and it is not naturally good human violence that
      will resolve it and commence the thinning process. If human violence
      is (in a purely pragmatic or evolutionary sense) good for the species;
      how have we come through instruments of war to face the potential end
      of the planet and/or the species? Simply put, some time ago we erected
      a technology of violence too detached from the natural evolutionary
      process of our species to do us any natural good with its violence. It
      has caused us to falsely obtain to a crisis, and it is not surprising
      that it is likely now that we will falsely obtain to a solution with a
      potential to obviate our species. In the natural bargain one does not
      get something without giving something up. Evolution is not a force or
      design, just a consequence of motion. Nothing in the universe is
      stationary. The intercourse of things is inevitable. The dance of
      forces and things in cosmic resonances is inevitable. Yet the odds of
      a planet existing, the odds of a species existing, are beyond the
      reach of mathematics. The possibility of the reconstruction of such
      things, such forces, such resonances, in a universe is beyond any
      epistemological expression other than impossible. There are no words
      fit to describe the utterly unpredictable. For most of us the
      essential form of the question never changes: "What am I gonna do
      now?" I am dying, but then so are you. Part of what I am has come of
      violence, but then so has part of what you are. We all torture and
      kill ourselves and each other. There are no exceptions. It's an
      irresistable dance, the cosmic resonance of matter in which life is
      captured and briefly entranced, and it is violent. Life is. The
      universe is. It seems to be that - the existentialist is ethically
      bound to seek something other than peace.

      "and what 'll you do now...
      my blue eyed son, my darlin' young one?"

      "It's a hard rain 's gonna fall"
      Trinidad
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      Tr, Conflict and contradiction are not necessarily the same thing as violence and, by extension, war. Human existence is an existence of eventual conflicts and
      Message 2 of 24 , Sep 17, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Tr,

        Conflict and contradiction are not necessarily the same thing as violence
        and, by extension, war. Human existence is an existence of eventual conflicts and
        contradictions. Hegel and Nietzsche were correct on that count.

        War, however, is a political concept, an ideological one -- and does not
        merely have "peace" as its contrary. Rather, it nearly always has as its real life
        contrary the actual interests of those who fight the war, which is nearly
        always different from the interests of those that wage the wars. Being against a
        war, then, does not necessarily mean that one is a pacifist, that one denies
        the 'conflictual' realities that you cite. Wars of empire or imperialism are a
        case in point. So, an existentialist protest against the aggressive policies
        of his or her nation or of some other nation can certainly be a concrete act
        of determinate free will and an expression of philosophical integrity.

        Wil

        In a message dated 9/17/06 8:10:59 PM, cruzprdb@... writes:


        > "I've been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard,
        > And it's a hard rains gonna fall."
        >
        > I often find that at this list, other than Bill, the view of violence
        > is not existential. Violence occurs in signifigant numbers somewhere
        > within the planetary dispersion of the human species every single
        > second that goes by. Violence is a fact of human existence. An
        > existentialist cannot adapt a pacifist stance simply because violence
        > is intrinisic to the facticity of being human. Until it is not,
        > pacifism must be left to the deluded, the religious, the idealist, the
        > less than human. This is not to say that the existentialist may not
        > love peace. He may love peace, but he may not hate violence without
        > hating him/herself, without hating the species. Such a disposition
        > often forces the existentialist into pointless arguments. It simply
        > cannot be argued that violence, and a capacity for violent acts, is
        > not an intrinisic quality of the human species. This is not skepticism
        > at work here, just facticity. I love this planet. I love this species
        > wholly, and I love being alive as a human being. I embrace the quality
        > of violence that exists in both in that love regardless of the
        > consequences. Love is essentially not pragmatic toward anything in its
        > embrace, yet this lack of pragmatic consideration is in itself
        > pragmatic toward the one loving in that the one loving is engaged in
        > accepting and recognizing a whole other. The one loving then cannot
        > exclude essential parts of the human other, or him/herself. Loving
        > then is not an idealistic action, but rather an activity detached of
        > idealism all together. It is just an ongoing process of recognizing
        > the whole human being. For the existentialist violence is intrinsic to
        > the human species. It is not a matter in need of justification. Taking
        > it as in need of justification puts it immediately into the service of
        > the idealogue. All idealism, including pacifism panders to violence.
        > The idealogue believes that violence brings change. It does not. At
        > best it brings bio-chemical and cosmic forces into a syncretistic
        > settlement for specific numbers of people for a specific time. The
        > people remain violent. They are simply tuned and directed by
        > idealogical purpose. Such settlements can never be lasting; first
        > because ideology is an overlay, actually a construct to manipulate
        > violent people; second because the process of evolution is violent;
        > third because the human species is violent and literate, thus arguably
        > done with the constructive self-destruction of evolution at least as
        > far as this planetary set of chemical resonances is concerned.
        > Essentially evolution on this planet is a stepped process of temporary
        > settlements toward a permanent settlement: the random bio-chemical
        > violence of the cosmos toward an exhaustion of possibility, an end. To
        > be sure it is a ribbon of development tied to a planet, but for this
        > planet, it is likely that the human species is its end. We record the
        > reflection. Consider a pacifist bio-chemist. If he were to design a
        > bio-chemical solution to circumvent violence in the human being; what
        > would the human race become? In a Heideggerian sense I think a tool.
        > What hand then would hold or have need of the tool? What hand indeed.
        >
        > "I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,
        > And it's a hard rain's gonna fall."
        >
        > There has never been a soundly proposed argument against human
        > violence, yet most educated people labor under the fallacy that ending
        > or limiting violence in the species is good for the future of the
        > species. Evolution arguably indicates otherwise. Looking to the
        > natural history of the development of the human race we may not
        > discount the goodness of violence. We have filled up the planet. Now,
        > in the pattern of all terrestial biological things; we have thrived to
        > the apparent limitations of the ecological system. The consequences
        > seem inevitable: the thinning of the herd to preserve the grass. The
        > problem is: it is not naturally good human violence that has brought
        > us to this point, and it is not naturally good human violence that
        > will resolve it and commence the thinning process. If human violence
        > is (in a purely pragmatic or evolutionary sense) good for the species;
        > how have we come through instruments of war to face the potential end
        > of the planet and/or the species? Simply put, some time ago we erected
        > a technology of violence too detached from the natural evolutionary
        > process of our species to do us any natural good with its violence. It
        > has caused us to falsely obtain to a crisis, and it is not surprising
        > that it is likely now that we will falsely obtain to a solution with a
        > potential to obviate our species. In the natural bargain one does not
        > get something without giving something up. Evolution is not a force or
        > design, just a consequence of motion. Nothing in the universe is
        > stationary. The intercourse of things is inevitable. The dance of
        > forces and things in cosmic resonances is inevitable. Yet the odds of
        > a planet existing, the odds of a species existing, are beyond the
        > reach of mathematics. The possibility of the reconstruction of such
        > things, such forces, such resonances, in a universe is beyond any
        > epistemological expression other than impossible. There are no words
        > fit to describe the utterly unpredictable. For most of us the
        > essential form of the question never changes: "What am I gonna do
        > now?" I am dying, but then so are you. Part of what I am has come of
        > violence, but then so has part of what you are. We all torture and
        > kill ourselves and each other. There are no exceptions. It's an
        > irresistable dance, the cosmic resonance of matter in which life is
        > captured and briefly entranced, and it is violent. Life is. The
        > universe is. It seems to be that - the existentialist is ethically
        > bound to seek something other than peace.
        >
        > "and what 'll you do now...
        > my blue eyed son, my darlin' young one?"
        >
        > "It's a hard rain 's gonna fall"
        > Trinidad
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Trinidad Cruz
        Thank you for the comment Wil, but in an ethical sense I am not actually addressing philosophical integrity.I am referring to an ethics of facticity. Many
        Message 3 of 24 , Sep 17, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you for the comment Wil, but in an ethical sense I am not
          actually addressing philosophical integrity.I am referring to an
          ethics of facticity. Many things are ambiguous, but I do not think an
          existentialist can ethically switch paradigms to address a constructed
          dilemma. War is ideological. Existentialism is not.Violence is a human
          quality, arguably existing before literature and continuing after.
          After all this time I do not think it can be argued that it is a
          vestigial quality, as that would be to exceed the limitation of
          epistemology.(literature has come of humans, violent humans)
          Philosophy has largely failed to notice this limitation. or ignored it
          for ideological reasons. It is arguably up to existentialism to deal
          with this misplacement of value. I have taken a turn recently, and I
          will be posting more on this subject matter. I have great difficulty
          writing about it so I hope whoever is interested will bear with me a
          bit. It was whispered into me a long time ago. The mud washed off the
          hole a day or two ago.

          tc

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
          >
          > Tr,
          >
          > Conflict and contradiction are not necessarily the same thing as
          violence
          > and, by extension, war. Human existence is an existence of eventual
          conflicts and
          > contradictions. Hegel and Nietzsche were correct on that count.
          >
          > War, however, is a political concept, an ideological one -- and does
          not
          > merely have "peace" as its contrary. Rather, it nearly always has as
          its real life
          > contrary the actual interests of those who fight the war, which is
          nearly
          > always different from the interests of those that wage the wars.
          Being against a
          > war, then, does not necessarily mean that one is a pacifist, that
          one denies
          > the 'conflictual' realities that you cite. Wars of empire or
          imperialism are a
          > case in point. So, an existentialist protest against the aggressive
          policies
          > of his or her nation or of some other nation can certainly be a
          concrete act
          > of determinate free will and an expression of philosophical integrity.
          >
          > Wil
          >
          > In a message dated 9/17/06 8:10:59 PM, cruzprdb@... writes:
          >
          >
          > > "I've been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard,
          > > And it's a hard rains gonna fall."
          > >
          > > I often find that at this list, other than Bill, the view of violence
          > > is not existential. Violence occurs in signifigant numbers somewhere
          > > within the planetary dispersion of the human species every single
          > > second that goes by. Violence is a fact of human existence. An
          > > existentialist cannot adapt a pacifist stance simply because violence
          > > is intrinisic to the facticity of being human. Until it is not,
          > > pacifism must be left to the deluded, the religious, the idealist, the
          > > less than human. This is not to say that the existentialist may not
          > > love peace. He may love peace, but he may not hate violence without
          > > hating him/herself, without hating the species. Such a disposition
          > > often forces the existentialist into pointless arguments. It simply
          > > cannot be argued that violence, and a capacity for violent acts, is
          > > not an intrinisic quality of the human species. This is not skepticism
          > > at work here, just facticity. I love this planet. I love this species
          > > wholly, and I love being alive as a human being. I embrace the quality
          > > of violence that exists in both in that love regardless of the
          > > consequences. Love is essentially not pragmatic toward anything in its
          > > embrace, yet this lack of pragmatic consideration is in itself
          > > pragmatic toward the one loving in that the one loving is engaged in
          > > accepting and recognizing a whole other. The one loving then cannot
          > > exclude essential parts of the human other, or him/herself. Loving
          > > then is not an idealistic action, but rather an activity detached of
          > > idealism all together. It is just an ongoing process of recognizing
          > > the whole human being. For the existentialist violence is intrinsic to
          > > the human species. It is not a matter in need of justification. Taking
          > > it as in need of justification puts it immediately into the service of
          > > the idealogue. All idealism, including pacifism panders to violence.
          > > The idealogue believes that violence brings change. It does not. At
          > > best it brings bio-chemical and cosmic forces into a syncretistic
          > > settlement for specific numbers of people for a specific time. The
          > > people remain violent. They are simply tuned and directed by
          > > idealogical purpose. Such settlements can never be lasting; first
          > > because ideology is an overlay, actually a construct to manipulate
          > > violent people; second because the process of evolution is violent;
          > > third because the human species is violent and literate, thus arguably
          > > done with the constructive self-destruction of evolution at least as
          > > far as this planetary set of chemical resonances is concerned.
          > > Essentially evolution on this planet is a stepped process of temporary
          > > settlements toward a permanent settlement: the random bio-chemical
          > > violence of the cosmos toward an exhaustion of possibility, an end. To
          > > be sure it is a ribbon of development tied to a planet, but for this
          > > planet, it is likely that the human species is its end. We record the
          > > reflection. Consider a pacifist bio-chemist. If he were to design a
          > > bio-chemical solution to circumvent violence in the human being; what
          > > would the human race become? In a Heideggerian sense I think a tool.
          > > What hand then would hold or have need of the tool? What hand indeed.
          > >
          > > "I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,
          > > And it's a hard rain's gonna fall."
          > >
          > > There has never been a soundly proposed argument against human
          > > violence, yet most educated people labor under the fallacy that ending
          > > or limiting violence in the species is good for the future of the
          > > species. Evolution arguably indicates otherwise. Looking to the
          > > natural history of the development of the human race we may not
          > > discount the goodness of violence. We have filled up the planet. Now,
          > > in the pattern of all terrestial biological things; we have thrived to
          > > the apparent limitations of the ecological system. The consequences
          > > seem inevitable: the thinning of the herd to preserve the grass. The
          > > problem is: it is not naturally good human violence that has brought
          > > us to this point, and it is not naturally good human violence that
          > > will resolve it and commence the thinning process. If human violence
          > > is (in a purely pragmatic or evolutionary sense) good for the species;
          > > how have we come through instruments of war to face the potential end
          > > of the planet and/or the species? Simply put, some time ago we erected
          > > a technology of violence too detached from the natural evolutionary
          > > process of our species to do us any natural good with its violence. It
          > > has caused us to falsely obtain to a crisis, and it is not surprising
          > > that it is likely now that we will falsely obtain to a solution with a
          > > potential to obviate our species. In the natural bargain one does not
          > > get something without giving something up. Evolution is not a force or
          > > design, just a consequence of motion. Nothing in the universe is
          > > stationary. The intercourse of things is inevitable. The dance of
          > > forces and things in cosmic resonances is inevitable. Yet the odds of
          > > a planet existing, the odds of a species existing, are beyond the
          > > reach of mathematics. The possibility of the reconstruction of such
          > > things, such forces, such resonances, in a universe is beyond any
          > > epistemological expression other than impossible. There are no words
          > > fit to describe the utterly unpredictable. For most of us the
          > > essential form of the question never changes: "What am I gonna do
          > > now?" I am dying, but then so are you. Part of what I am has come of
          > > violence, but then so has part of what you are. We all torture and
          > > kill ourselves and each other. There are no exceptions. It's an
          > > irresistable dance, the cosmic resonance of matter in which life is
          > > captured and briefly entranced, and it is violent. Life is. The
          > > universe is. It seems to be that - the existentialist is ethically
          > > bound to seek something other than peace.
          > >
          > > "and what 'll you do now...
          > > my blue eyed son, my darlin' young one?"
          > >
          > > "It's a hard rain 's gonna fall"
          > > Trinidad
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          tc, All ethics, if it is a grounded ethics or at least addresses the real world of real people, is involved in factical reality, or else it is nonsense. Even
          Message 4 of 24 , Sep 18, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            tc,

            All ethics, if it is a grounded ethics or at least addresses the real world
            of real people, is involved in factical reality, or else it is nonsense. Even
            the merest proscriptive ethics still deals with people here and now. An ethics
            is the one part of philosophy or religion or social codes that has a factical
            weight (as opposed to a metaphysics, for example). An ethics will command one
            to either ignore the real world or to engage oneself in it. The former kind of
            moral codes are often 'religious', or at least world denying. Existentialism,
            at least in the forms that I know it, is an engaged philosophy. It has to be
            politically sensitive -- that is it has to be a voice against
            socio-political abuses of power and the construction of false values.

            Because violence is part of life does not mean that violence is to be
            tolerated at a social level, except under the most rarified of circumstances. To
            abstract "war" as a necessary function of the world process is to miss the
            specific realities of the subject. There is a tendency, for example, in science to
            understand the most reducted (as in reductionism) plane of things as the most
            real. In that view, quarkes are 'more real' than suns. That kind of view would
            opine that genes fight wars. But that is an obfuscation of reality. Genes do
            not fight wars. People do. Genes do not construct torture chambers, people do.
            Abstraction, therefore, can often miss the point entirely.

            Any reduction of "the world" to a "this" or "that" will miss that worls, will
            falsify it. That is the story of philosophy, a story that Existentialism was
            most responsible of reminding us.

            Or so I think.

            Wil

            PS Watch out for those 'turns'.


            In a message dated 9/17/06 10:29:13 PM, cruzprdb@... writes:


            >
            >
            >
            > Thank you for the comment Wil, but in an ethical sense I am not
            > actually addressing philosophical integrity.I am referring to an
            > ethics of facticity. Many things are ambiguous, but I do not think an
            > existentialist can ethically switch paradigms to address a constructed
            > dilemma. War is ideological. Existentialism is not.Violence is a human
            > quality, arguably existing before literature and continuing after.
            > After all this time I do not think it can be argued that it is a
            > vestigial quality, as that would be to exceed the limitation of
            > epistemology. epistemology.<wbr>(literature has come of huma
            > Philosophy has largely failed to notice this limitation. or ignored it
            > for ideological reasons. It is arguably up to existentialism to deal
            > with this misplacement of value. I have taken a turn recently, and I
            > will be posting more on this subject matter. I have great difficulty
            > writing about it so I hope whoever is interested will bear with me a
            > bit. It was whispered into me a long time ago. The mud washed off the
            > hole a day or two ago.
            >
            > tc
            >
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mary
            ... An ethics will command one to either ignore the real world or to engage oneself in it. The former kind of moral codes are often religious , or at least
            Message 5 of 24 , Sep 18, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

              An ethics will command one to either ignore the real world or to engage
              oneself in it. The former kind of moral codes are often 'religious', or
              at least world denying. Existentialism, at least in the forms that I
              know it, is an engaged philosophy. It has to be politically sensitive --
              that is it has to be a voice against socio-political abuses of power
              and the construction of false values.

              Because violence is part of life does not mean that violence is to be
              tolerated at a social level, except under the most rarified of
              circumstances. To abstract "war" as a necessary function of the world
              process is to miss the specific realities of the subject.

              Wil,

              Yes, there is the problem with philosophy/religion being abstract. If
              we have violence and other darkness in ourselves, it can be safely kept
              or somehow channeled into creative venues and small monuments of vanity
              which may in turn strengthen and encourage others. That's a practical
              ethical solution though won't do much against the immediacy of WMD and
              global warming. Such a lovely absurdity, yes? I like Sam Silva's
              expression:

              [...]
              Philosophies!,
              whose passions
              fill up the void and silence
              of religion...like a neighbor
              whose sobriety and earthly sense,
              whose jokes and common recompense,
              salt the food, the thought, the meat
              of all such things as darker hours
              might somehow have wasted
              ...on the gods.

              Morning And The City Gates
              from Eating & Drinking
              by Sam Silva
              1st Books, 2003

              Mary
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              Absolutely. Channeling or sublating antagonism into a positive interpretation or into an artistic representation -- or into a literary style, etc., is the
              Message 6 of 24 , Sep 18, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Absolutely. Channeling or "sublating" antagonism into a positive interpretation or into an artistic representation -- or into a literary style, etc., is the very essence of the matter.

                Comprehending ones own circumstance as a window into the circumstances of others is a basic quality of being human or humane. Seeing the universal in the particular. The world in a grain of sand. And then there is the antagonism of that being a threat to the authenticity of the self. The self rebels and throws off the weight of the world, but only to return to it as another truth, another universalization at an even more general level. Back and forth, endlessly, but not pointlessly I hope.

                Or so it seems to me.

                Wil

                -----Original Message-----
                From: agignesthai@...
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 8:40 AM
                Subject: [existlist] engaging the rain

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                An ethics will command one to either ignore the real world or to engage
                oneself in it. The former kind of moral codes are often 'religious', or
                at least world denying. Existentialism, at least in the forms that I
                know it, is an engaged philosophy. It has to be politically sensitive --
                that is it has to be a voice against socio-political abuses of power
                and the construction of false values.

                Because violence is part of life does not mean that violence is to be
                tolerated at a social level, except under the most rarified of
                circumstances. To abstract "war" as a necessary function of the world
                process is to miss the specific realities of the subject.

                Wil,

                Yes, there is the problem with philosophy/religion being abstract. If
                we have violence and other darkness in ourselves, it can be safely kept
                or somehow channeled into creative venues and small monuments of vanity
                which may in turn strengthen and encourage others. That's a practical
                ethical solution though won't do much against the immediacy of WMD and
                global warming. Such a lovely absurdity, yes? I like Sam Silva's
                expression:

                [...]
                Philosophies!,
                whose passions
                fill up the void and silence
                of religion...like a neighbor
                whose sobriety and earthly sense,
                whose jokes and common recompense,
                salt the food, the thought, the meat
                of all such things as darker hours
                might somehow have wasted
                ...on the gods.

                Morning And The City Gates
                from Eating & Drinking
                by Sam Silva
                1st Books, 2003

                Mary


                ________________________________________________________________________
                Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Trinidad Cruz
                Wil, I do not think that one can argue that violence is an external quality in the human race. It seems so because it is acted out, but no, it is natural, a
                Message 7 of 24 , Sep 18, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wil,

                  I do not think that one can argue that violence is an external quality
                  in the human race. It seems so because it is acted out, but no, it is
                  natural, a natural part of what a human being is. Also, evolution (the
                  genesis of things) is a violent process and all human beings are
                  violent. Violence is not a bacteria or a virus, a thought or a theory,
                  a gene or a even a meme. It is simply natural. Tolerating it or not
                  tolerating it is not ethically important to the existentialist, just a
                  matter construction or deconstruction. Philosophy falls entirely into
                  confusion in its failure to recognize a simple natural fact. Our
                  species is naturally violent. All our literature, all epistemology, is
                  naturally violent. It is in fact violent to end an incidence of
                  violence. It is senseless to isolate the idea of violence from the
                  idea of human being and argue its merit. Its merit is natural. It is
                  part of what we are, and part of how we have come to be. Everything we
                  make is imbued with it. That includes literature and philosophy. The
                  existentialist must seek something other than peace as it cannot be
                  found or constructed in what is real. Switching paradigms to the story
                  of things does not make peace anything other than a fairy tale. There
                  are no arguments otherwise. The philosopher can seek whatever he/she
                  wants in the story of things, but it is not really there. The
                  existentialist must continue to break with abstract rationalism. Let's
                  face it. Our species is nearly omnivarous. Tripping over words may be
                  elegant to some branches of philosophy, but it cannot be ethically so
                  for the existentialist. Philosophy has wasted the time of the species
                  attempting to construct what cannot be constructed. For the
                  existentialist; if there is any onward possibility, it cannot be found
                  by attempting to be what we are not. If philosophy seeks peace, it is
                  merely an ideology, and outside the paradigm of an existentialism.
                  Authenticity is essentially human maturity. How can something, that
                  endlessly argues against being what it is, mature?

                  tc

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                  >
                  > tc,
                  >
                  > All ethics, if it is a grounded ethics or at least addresses the
                  real world
                  > of real people, is involved in factical reality, or else it is
                  nonsense. Even
                  > the merest proscriptive ethics still deals with people here and now.
                  An ethics
                  > is the one part of philosophy or religion or social codes that has a
                  factical
                  > weight (as opposed to a metaphysics, for example). An ethics will
                  command one
                  > to either ignore the real world or to engage oneself in it. The
                  former kind of
                  > moral codes are often 'religious', or at least world denying.
                  Existentialism,
                  > at least in the forms that I know it, is an engaged philosophy. It
                  has to be
                  > politically sensitive -- that is it has to be a voice against
                  > socio-political abuses of power and the construction of false values.
                  >
                  > Because violence is part of life does not mean that violence is to be
                  > tolerated at a social level, except under the most rarified of
                  circumstances. To
                  > abstract "war" as a necessary function of the world process is to
                  miss the
                  > specific realities of the subject. There is a tendency, for example,
                  in science to
                  > understand the most reducted (as in reductionism) plane of things as
                  the most
                  > real. In that view, quarkes are 'more real' than suns. That kind of
                  view would
                  > opine that genes fight wars. But that is an obfuscation of reality.
                  Genes do
                  > not fight wars. People do. Genes do not construct torture chambers,
                  people do.
                  > Abstraction, therefore, can often miss the point entirely.
                  >
                  > Any reduction of "the world" to a "this" or "that" will miss that
                  worls, will
                  > falsify it. That is the story of philosophy, a story that
                  Existentialism was
                  > most responsible of reminding us.
                  >
                  > Or so I think.
                  >
                  > Wil
                  >
                  > PS Watch out for those 'turns'.
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 9/17/06 10:29:13 PM, cruzprdb@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Thank you for the comment Wil, but in an ethical sense I am not
                  > > actually addressing philosophical integrity.I am referring to an
                  > > ethics of facticity. Many things are ambiguous, but I do not think an
                  > > existentialist can ethically switch paradigms to address a constructed
                  > > dilemma. War is ideological. Existentialism is not.Violence is a human
                  > > quality, arguably existing before literature and continuing after.
                  > > After all this time I do not think it can be argued that it is a
                  > > vestigial quality, as that would be to exceed the limitation of
                  > > epistemology. epistemology.<wbr>(literature has come of huma
                  > > Philosophy has largely failed to notice this limitation. or ignored it
                  > > for ideological reasons. It is arguably up to existentialism to deal
                  > > with this misplacement of value. I have taken a turn recently, and I
                  > > will be posting more on this subject matter. I have great difficulty
                  > > writing about it so I hope whoever is interested will bear with me a
                  > > bit. It was whispered into me a long time ago. The mud washed off the
                  > > hole a day or two ago.
                  > >
                  > > tc
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • eupraxis@aol.com
                  There are philosophical positions like yours. Hobbes comes to mind. De Sade. Some of the Italian Futurists. But calling that existentialist is very dubious.
                  Message 8 of 24 , Sep 18, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    There are philosophical positions like yours. Hobbes comes to mind. De Sade. Some of the Italian Futurists. But calling that "existentialist" is very dubious.

                    I agree with your premises, for the most part, but not with the manner by which you generalize from them. Making 'War' into a virtual metaphysic is still metaphysics, the one thing that existentialism is most wary of. It also comes very close to being a radical Nihilism. While nihilism is a necessary moment in one's independence from metaphysics (as in Nietzsche), it can turn into one (that is, a metaphysics) if left as an axiom. It also becomes, as Nietzsche has so decisively shown, an anti-life, anti-worldly point of view, even as it seems to be affirming some place in the world by virtue of its negativity.

                    Also, Darwinian evolution does not turn on the notion of violence, but rather on survival. Survival can take many forms, symbiosis for example.

                    Finally, the fact that things eat other things does not mean that one can generalize an ethics from that. It just doesn't work out. Think of what that would look like. Anthropormorphosing the natural world into a glorification of cruelty is certainly not an existential insight. It is deduction in the worst sense of the term. Or so it seems to me.

                    Wil



                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: cruzprdb@...
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:12 AM
                    Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain

                    Wil,

                    I do not think that one can argue that violence is an external quality
                    in the human race. It seems so because it is acted out, but no, it is
                    natural, a natural part of what a human being is. Also, evolution (the
                    genesis of things) is a violent process and all human beings are
                    violent. Violence is not a bacteria or a virus, a thought or a theory,
                    a gene or a even a meme. It is simply natural. Tolerating it or not
                    tolerating it is not ethically important to the existentialist, just a
                    matter construction or deconstruction. Philosophy falls entirely into
                    confusion in its failure to recognize a simple natural fact. Our
                    species is naturally violent. All our literature, all epistemology, is
                    naturally violent. It is in fact violent to end an incidence of
                    violence. It is senseless to isolate the idea of violence from the
                    idea of human being and argue its merit. Its merit is natural. It is
                    part of what we are, and part of how we have come to be. Everything we
                    make is imbued with it. That includes literature and philosophy. The
                    existentialist must seek something other than peace as it cannot be
                    found or constructed in what is real. Switching paradigms to the story
                    of things does not make peace anything other than a fairy tale. There
                    are no arguments otherwise. The philosopher can seek whatever he/she
                    wants in the story of things, but it is not really there. The
                    existentialist must continue to break with abstract rationalism. Let's
                    face it. Our species is nearly omnivarous. Tripping over words may be
                    elegant to some branches of philosophy, but it cannot be ethically so
                    for the existentialist. Philosophy has wasted the time of the species
                    attempting to construct what cannot be constructed. For the
                    existentialist; if there is any onward possibility, it cannot be found
                    by attempting to be what we are not. If philosophy seeks peace, it is
                    merely an ideology, and outside the paradigm of an existentialism.
                    Authenticity is essentially human maturity. How can something, that
                    endlessly argues against being what it is, mature?

                    tc

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                    >
                    > tc,
                    >
                    > All ethics, if it is a grounded ethics or at least addresses the
                    real world
                    > of real people, is involved in factical reality, or else it is
                    nonsense. Even
                    > the merest proscriptive ethics still deals with people here and now.
                    An ethics
                    > is the one part of philosophy or religion or social codes that has a
                    factical
                    > weight (as opposed to a metaphysics, for example). An ethics will
                    command one
                    > to either ignore the real world or to engage oneself in it. The
                    former kind of
                    > moral codes are often 'religious', or at least world denying.
                    Existentialism,
                    > at least in the forms that I know it, is an engaged philosophy. It
                    has to be
                    > politically sensitive -- that is it has to be a voice against
                    > socio-political abuses of power and the construction of false values.
                    >
                    > Because violence is part of life does not mean that violence is to be
                    > tolerated at a social level, except under the most rarified of
                    circumstances. To
                    > abstract "war" as a necessary function of the world process is to
                    miss the
                    > specific realities of the subject. There is a tendency, for example,
                    in science to
                    > understand the most reducted (as in reductionism) plane of things as
                    the most
                    > real. In that view, quarkes are 'more real' than suns. That kind of
                    view would
                    > opine that genes fight wars. But that is an obfuscation of reality.
                    Genes do
                    > not fight wars. People do. Genes do not construct torture chambers,
                    people do.
                    > Abstraction, therefore, can often miss the point entirely.
                    >
                    > Any reduction of "the world" to a "this" or "that" will miss that
                    worls, will
                    > falsify it. That is the story of philosophy, a story that
                    Existentialism was
                    > most responsible of reminding us.
                    >
                    > Or so I think.
                    >
                    > Wil
                    >
                    > PS Watch out for those 'turns'.
                    >
                    >
                    > In a message dated 9/17/06 10:29:13 PM, cruzprdb@... writes:
                    >
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Thank you for the comment Wil, but in an ethical sense I am not
                    > > actually addressing philosophical integrity.I am referring to an
                    > > ethics of facticity. Many things are ambiguous, but I do not think an
                    > > existentialist can ethically switch paradigms to address a constructed
                    > > dilemma. War is ideological. Existentialism is not.Violence is a human
                    > > quality, arguably existing before literature and continuing after.
                    > > After all this time I do not think it can be argued that it is a
                    > > vestigial quality, as that would be to exceed the limitation of
                    > > epistemology. epistemology.<wbr>(literature has come of huma
                    > > Philosophy has largely failed to notice this limitation. or ignored it
                    > > for ideological reasons. It is arguably up to existentialism to deal
                    > > with this misplacement of value. I have taken a turn recently, and I
                    > > will be posting more on this subject matter. I have great difficulty
                    > > writing about it so I hope whoever is interested will bear with me a
                    > > bit. It was whispered into me a long time ago. The mud washed off the
                    > > hole a day or two ago.
                    > >
                    > > tc
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >


                    ________________________________________________________________________
                    Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Mary
                    ... Also, Darwinian evolution does not turn on the notion of violence, but rather on survival. Survival can take many forms, symbiosis for example. Wil, Again,
                    Message 9 of 24 , Sep 18, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                      Also, Darwinian evolution does not turn on the notion of violence, but
                      rather on survival. Survival can take many forms, symbiosis for example.

                      Wil,

                      Again, I agree. There are probably just as many examples of reciprocal
                      altruism and symbiosis as there are for violence and competition. They
                      can exist alongside one another and take their appropriate turns. This
                      understanding found literary expression in Wolfram Eschenbach's
                      Parzival, and likely far before then. It's a process for the individual
                      to understand, but expecting all people to be in the same place of
                      progress is undoubtedly frustrating. I don't know if it's a realistic
                      goal. This is a major obstacle for existential progress. This makes
                      activist goals frustrating but nevertheless compelling. The reluctant
                      knight sallies forth to defend & render justice but is also rich in
                      mercy and humility.

                      Mary
                    • Trinidad Cruz
                      ... There are philosophical positions like yours. Hobbes comes to mind. De Sade. Some of the Italian Futurists. But calling that existentialist is very
                      Message 10 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                        "There are philosophical positions like yours. Hobbes comes to mind.
                        De Sade. Some of the Italian Futurists. But calling that
                        "existentialist" is very dubious."

                        It does not matter if their are philosophical positions that appear
                        similar to my view. My view is not a philosophical position, more like
                        the fools.

                        "I agree with your premises, for the most part, but not with the
                        manner by which you generalize from them. Making 'War' into a virtual
                        metaphysic is still metaphysics, the one thing that existentialism is
                        most wary of. It also comes very close to being a radical Nihilism.
                        While nihilism is a necessary moment in one's independence from
                        metaphysics (as in Nietzsche), it can turn into one (that is, a
                        metaphysics) if left as an axiom. It also becomes, as Nietzsche has so
                        decisively shown, an anti-life, anti-worldly point of view, even as it
                        seems to be affirming some place in the world by virtue of its
                        negativity."

                        Again, how is accepting that violence is intrinsic to being
                        threatening to being?

                        "Also, Darwinian evolution does not turn on the notion of violence,
                        but rather on survival. Survival can take many forms, symbiosis for
                        example."

                        Actually evolution turns on motion.

                        "Finally, the fact that things eat other things does not mean that one
                        can generalize an ethics from that."

                        Actual ethics can only be generated from fact. I am not a pragmatist.
                        If we are cannibals we should generate ethics about it.

                        "Anthropormorphosing the natural world into a glorification of cruelty
                        is certainly not an existential insight."

                        Writing about something is not anthropomorphizing it. In fact writing
                        at all is because literature is a product of anthropomorphizing motion
                        and resonance upon matter and motion. Philosophy is in
                        denial.Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                        seems to be.

                        tc


                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: cruzprdb@...
                        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:12 AM
                        > Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain
                        >
                        > Wil,
                        >
                        > I do not think that one can argue that violence is an external quality
                        > in the human race. It seems so because it is acted out, but no, it is
                        > natural, a natural part of what a human being is. Also, evolution (the
                        > genesis of things) is a violent process and all human beings are
                        > violent. Violence is not a bacteria or a virus, a thought or a theory,
                        > a gene or a even a meme. It is simply natural. Tolerating it or not
                        > tolerating it is not ethically important to the existentialist, just a
                        > matter construction or deconstruction. Philosophy falls entirely into
                        > confusion in its failure to recognize a simple natural fact. Our
                        > species is naturally violent. All our literature, all epistemology, is
                        > naturally violent. It is in fact violent to end an incidence of
                        > violence. It is senseless to isolate the idea of violence from the
                        > idea of human being and argue its merit. Its merit is natural. It is
                        > part of what we are, and part of how we have come to be. Everything we
                        > make is imbued with it. That includes literature and philosophy. The
                        > existentialist must seek something other than peace as it cannot be
                        > found or constructed in what is real. Switching paradigms to the story
                        > of things does not make peace anything other than a fairy tale. There
                        > are no arguments otherwise. The philosopher can seek whatever he/she
                        > wants in the story of things, but it is not really there. The
                        > existentialist must continue to break with abstract rationalism. Let's
                        > face it. Our species is nearly omnivarous. Tripping over words may be
                        > elegant to some branches of philosophy, but it cannot be ethically so
                        > for the existentialist. Philosophy has wasted the time of the species
                        > attempting to construct what cannot be constructed. For the
                        > existentialist; if there is any onward possibility, it cannot be found
                        > by attempting to be what we are not. If philosophy seeks peace, it is
                        > merely an ideology, and outside the paradigm of an existentialism.
                        > Authenticity is essentially human maturity. How can something, that
                        > endlessly argues against being what it is, mature?
                        >
                        > tc
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                        > >
                        > > tc,
                        > >
                        > > All ethics, if it is a grounded ethics or at least addresses the
                        > real world
                        > > of real people, is involved in factical reality, or else it is
                        > nonsense. Even
                        > > the merest proscriptive ethics still deals with people here and now.
                        > An ethics
                        > > is the one part of philosophy or religion or social codes that has a
                        > factical
                        > > weight (as opposed to a metaphysics, for example). An ethics will
                        > command one
                        > > to either ignore the real world or to engage oneself in it. The
                        > former kind of
                        > > moral codes are often 'religious', or at least world denying.
                        > Existentialism,
                        > > at least in the forms that I know it, is an engaged philosophy. It
                        > has to be
                        > > politically sensitive -- that is it has to be a voice against
                        > > socio-political abuses of power and the construction of false
                        values.
                        > >
                        > > Because violence is part of life does not mean that violence is
                        to be
                        > > tolerated at a social level, except under the most rarified of
                        > circumstances. To
                        > > abstract "war" as a necessary function of the world process is to
                        > miss the
                        > > specific realities of the subject. There is a tendency, for example,
                        > in science to
                        > > understand the most reducted (as in reductionism) plane of things as
                        > the most
                        > > real. In that view, quarkes are 'more real' than suns. That kind of
                        > view would
                        > > opine that genes fight wars. But that is an obfuscation of reality.
                        > Genes do
                        > > not fight wars. People do. Genes do not construct torture chambers,
                        > people do.
                        > > Abstraction, therefore, can often miss the point entirely.
                        > >
                        > > Any reduction of "the world" to a "this" or "that" will miss that
                        > worls, will
                        > > falsify it. That is the story of philosophy, a story that
                        > Existentialism was
                        > > most responsible of reminding us.
                        > >
                        > > Or so I think.
                        > >
                        > > Wil
                        > >
                        > > PS Watch out for those 'turns'.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > In a message dated 9/17/06 10:29:13 PM, cruzprdb@ writes:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Thank you for the comment Wil, but in an ethical sense I am not
                        > > > actually addressing philosophical integrity.I am referring to an
                        > > > ethics of facticity. Many things are ambiguous, but I do not
                        think an
                        > > > existentialist can ethically switch paradigms to address a
                        constructed
                        > > > dilemma. War is ideological. Existentialism is not.Violence is
                        a human
                        > > > quality, arguably existing before literature and continuing after.
                        > > > After all this time I do not think it can be argued that it is a
                        > > > vestigial quality, as that would be to exceed the limitation of
                        > > > epistemology. epistemology.<wbr>(literature has come of huma
                        > > > Philosophy has largely failed to notice this limitation. or
                        ignored it
                        > > > for ideological reasons. It is arguably up to existentialism to
                        deal
                        > > > with this misplacement of value. I have taken a turn recently,
                        and I
                        > > > will be posting more on this subject matter. I have great
                        difficulty
                        > > > writing about it so I hope whoever is interested will bear with
                        me a
                        > > > bit. It was whispered into me a long time ago. The mud washed
                        off the
                        > > > hole a day or two ago.
                        > > >
                        > > > tc
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________________________________________________
                        > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
                        security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
                        across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Trinidad Cruz
                        Again, I agree. There are probably just as many examples of reciprocal altruism and symbiosis as there are for violence and competition. They can exist
                        Message 11 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "Again, I agree. There are probably just as many examples of
                          reciprocal altruism and symbiosis as there are for violence and
                          competition. They can exist alongside one another and take their
                          appropriate turns."

                          Well Mary once again you seem to be the sharpest knife in drawer. You
                          can go back through "Freedom Evolves" and clarify most of this. Think
                          about the concept of boundaries and how a boundary functions. Pretty
                          decent view of resonant activity. There are boundaries that are facts,
                          and boundaries that are not facts. Human beings seem to struggle
                          mightily with paradigm stability. I think this is a product of
                          self-determination. They make boundaries and then struggle to get by
                          them, because they cannot hold view in a specific paradigm of facticity.

                          tc
                        • louise
                          ... Aistheesis, the perceiving. Ethos, custom, usage. In relation to what seems to be, we contemplate, we act. What is the will? Does such concept bypass
                          Message 12 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                            > seems to be.

                            Aistheesis, the perceiving. Ethos, custom, usage. In relation to
                            what seems to be, we contemplate, we act. What is the will? Does
                            such concept bypass the notion of choice, throwing all hazard to the
                            strength of desire and decision? Are all choices confined to the
                            aesthetic domain, whereas an act of will would be ethical? Or would
                            that depend on the quality of valuation underlying decision? Perhaps
                            all these questions are wholly Germanic. Any takers?

                            Louise
                          • eupraxis@aol.com
                            Thanks TC. Nice starting point for (maybe) a good discussion. You wrote: Writing about something is not anthropomorphizing it. ...[L]iterature is a product of
                            Message 13 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks TC. Nice starting point for (maybe) a good discussion.

                              You wrote: "Writing about something is not anthropomorphizing it. ...[L]iterature is a product of anthropomorphizing motion and resonance upon matter and motion. Philosophy is in denial."

                              In a strong sense, it really is about anthropomorphizing (geeze, that is a drag to write). Plato makes the case (in the Phaedrus) that language creates a pantheon of minor gods when it generalizes words into concepts. Whenever a concept becomes a generative one, in a sense it takes on the role of a god. Just as the anthropomorphizing of objects in primitive societies makes of them virtual demigods, the generalization of a human affect or pathos (bathos?) makes of it something superhuman, or radically Ur-human. Sometimes a philosophical 'system' will try to use a static dialectic to assuage that tyranny of concept (classic dualisms, for example), but all that they do is create a pantheon of reductions. (I think Hegel best treats the problem.)

                              Existentialism, as I have understood it, resists such 'obeisance' to any generative conceptual framework (i.e., metaphysics-simpliciter). It is finally all about freedom.

                              What say you, comrade?

                              Wil

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: cruzprdb@...
                              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 9:46 AM
                              Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                              "There are philosophical positions like yours. Hobbes comes to mind.
                              De Sade. Some of the Italian Futurists. But calling that
                              "existentialist" is very dubious."

                              It does not matter if their are philosophical positions that appear
                              similar to my view. My view is not a philosophical position, more like
                              the fools.

                              "I agree with your premises, for the most part, but not with the
                              manner by which you generalize from them. Making 'War' into a virtual
                              metaphysic is still metaphysics, the one thing that existentialism is
                              most wary of. It also comes very close to being a radical Nihilism.
                              While nihilism is a necessary moment in one's independence from
                              metaphysics (as in Nietzsche), it can turn into one (that is, a
                              metaphysics) if left as an axiom. It also becomes, as Nietzsche has so
                              decisively shown, an anti-life, anti-worldly point of view, even as it
                              seems to be affirming some place in the world by virtue of its
                              negativity."

                              Again, how is accepting that violence is intrinsic to being
                              threatening to being?

                              "Also, Darwinian evolution does not turn on the notion of violence,
                              but rather on survival. Survival can take many forms, symbiosis for
                              example."

                              Actually evolution turns on motion.

                              "Finally, the fact that things eat other things does not mean that one
                              can generalize an ethics from that."

                              Actual ethics can only be generated from fact. I am not a pragmatist.
                              If we are cannibals we should generate ethics about it.

                              "Anthropormorphosing the natural world into a glorification of cruelty
                              is certainly not an existential insight."

                              Writing about something is not anthropomorphizing it. In fact writing
                              at all is because literature is a product of anthropomorphizing motion
                              and resonance upon matter and motion. Philosophy is in
                              denial.Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                              seems to be.

                              tc

                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: cruzprdb@...
                              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:12 AM
                              > Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain
                              >
                              > Wil,
                              >
                              > I do not think that one can argue that violence is an external quality
                              > in the human race. It seems so because it is acted out, but no, it is
                              > natural, a natural part of what a human being is. Also, evolution (the
                              > genesis of things) is a violent process and all human beings are
                              > violent. Violence is not a bacteria or a virus, a thought or a theory,
                              > a gene or a even a meme. It is simply natural. Tolerating it or not
                              > tolerating it is not ethically important to the existentialist, just a
                              > matter construction or deconstruction. Philosophy falls entirely into
                              > confusion in its failure to recognize a simple natural fact. Our
                              > species is naturally violent. All our literature, all epistemology, is
                              > naturally violent. It is in fact violent to end an incidence of
                              > violence. It is senseless to isolate the idea of violence from the
                              > idea of human being and argue its merit. Its merit is natural. It is
                              > part of what we are, and part of how we have come to be. Everything we
                              > make is imbued with it. That includes literature and philosophy. The
                              > existentialist must seek something other than peace as it cannot be
                              > found or constructed in what is real. Switching paradigms to the story
                              > of things does not make peace anything other than a fairy tale. There
                              > are no arguments otherwise. The philosopher can seek whatever he/she
                              > wants in the story of things, but it is not really there. The
                              > existentialist must continue to break with abstract rationalism. Let's
                              > face it. Our species is nearly omnivarous. Tripping over words may be
                              > elegant to some branches of philosophy, but it cannot be ethically so
                              > for the existentialist. Philosophy has wasted the time of the species
                              > attempting to construct what cannot be constructed. For the
                              > existentialist; if there is any onward possibility, it cannot be found
                              > by attempting to be what we are not. If philosophy seeks peace, it is
                              > merely an ideology, and outside the paradigm of an existentialism.
                              > Authenticity is essentially human maturity. How can something, that
                              > endlessly argues against being what it is, mature?
                              >
                              > tc
                              >
                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                              > >
                              > > tc,
                              > >
                              > > All ethics, if it is a grounded ethics or at least addresses the
                              > real world
                              > > of real people, is involved in factical reality, or else it is
                              > nonsense. Even
                              > > the merest proscriptive ethics still deals with people here and now.
                              > An ethics
                              > > is the one part of philosophy or religion or social codes that has a
                              > factical
                              > > weight (as opposed to a metaphysics, for example). An ethics will
                              > command one
                              > > to either ignore the real world or to engage oneself in it. The
                              > former kind of
                              > > moral codes are often 'religious', or at least world denying.
                              > Existentialism,
                              > > at least in the forms that I know it, is an engaged philosophy. It
                              > has to be
                              > > politically sensitive -- that is it has to be a voice against
                              > > socio-political abuses of power and the construction of false
                              values.
                              > >
                              > > Because violence is part of life does not mean that violence is
                              to be
                              > > tolerated at a social level, except under the most rarified of
                              > circumstances. To
                              > > abstract "war" as a necessary function of the world process is to
                              > miss the
                              > > specific realities of the subject. There is a tendency, for example,
                              > in science to
                              > > understand the most reducted (as in reductionism) plane of things as
                              > the most
                              > > real. In that view, quarkes are 'more real' than suns. That kind of
                              > view would
                              > > opine that genes fight wars. But that is an obfuscation of reality.
                              > Genes do
                              > > not fight wars. People do. Genes do not construct torture chambers,
                              > people do.
                              > > Abstraction, therefore, can often miss the point entirely.
                              > >
                              > > Any reduction of "the world" to a "this" or "that" will miss that
                              > worls, will
                              > > falsify it. That is the story of philosophy, a story that
                              > Existentialism was
                              > > most responsible of reminding us.
                              > >
                              > > Or so I think.
                              > >
                              > > Wil
                              > >
                              > > PS Watch out for those 'turns'.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > In a message dated 9/17/06 10:29:13 PM, cruzprdb@ writes:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Thank you for the comment Wil, but in an ethical sense I am not
                              > > > actually addressing philosophical integrity.I am referring to an
                              > > > ethics of facticity. Many things are ambiguous, but I do not
                              think an
                              > > > existentialist can ethically switch paradigms to address a
                              constructed
                              > > > dilemma. War is ideological. Existentialism is not.Violence is
                              a human
                              > > > quality, arguably existing before literature and continuing after.
                              > > > After all this time I do not think it can be argued that it is a
                              > > > vestigial quality, as that would be to exceed the limitation of
                              > > > epistemology. epistemology.<wbr>(literature has come of huma
                              > > > Philosophy has largely failed to notice this limitation. or
                              ignored it
                              > > > for ideological reasons. It is arguably up to existentialism to
                              deal
                              > > > with this misplacement of value. I have taken a turn recently,
                              and I
                              > > > will be posting more on this subject matter. I have great
                              difficulty
                              > > > writing about it so I hope whoever is interested will bear with
                              me a
                              > > > bit. It was whispered into me a long time ago. The mud washed
                              off the
                              > > > hole a day or two ago.
                              > > >
                              > > > tc
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              > __________________________________________________________
                              > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
                              security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
                              across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >


                              ________________________________________________________________________
                              Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                              Yes, German, indeed. Kant has much to say about freedom, but he really only does it justice in the third critique when it becomes associated with aesthetic
                              Message 14 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yes, German, indeed. Kant has much to say about freedom, but he really only does it justice in the third critique when it becomes associated with aesthetic judgment.

                                Wil

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: hecubatoher@...
                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:13 AM
                                Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain

                                > Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                                > seems to be.

                                Aistheesis, the perceiving. Ethos, custom, usage. In relation to
                                what seems to be, we contemplate, we act. What is the will? Does
                                such concept bypass the notion of choice, throwing all hazard to the
                                strength of desire and decision? Are all choices confined to the
                                aesthetic domain, whereas an act of will would be ethical? Or would
                                that depend on the quality of valuation underlying decision? Perhaps
                                all these questions are wholly Germanic. Any takers?

                                Louise


                                ________________________________________________________________________
                                Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Mary
                                Wholly Germanic, I fear. Trying to sort these, when my goal is to accept such opposites and nuances, gives me a headache. It seems such a a natural thing:
                                Message 15 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Wholly Germanic, I fear. Trying to sort these, when my goal is to
                                  accept such opposites and nuances, gives me a headache. It seems such a
                                  a natural thing: decide, then act. To dissect these in the "what seems"
                                  realm of existence, though often mystical indeed, seems rather
                                  abstract. Can you give an example? Mary

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                                  > > seems to be.
                                  >
                                  > Aistheesis, the perceiving. Ethos, custom, usage. In relation to
                                  > what seems to be, we contemplate, we act. What is the will? Does
                                  > such concept bypass the notion of choice, throwing all hazard to the
                                  > strength of desire and decision? Are all choices confined to the
                                  > aesthetic domain, whereas an act of will would be ethical? Or would
                                  > that depend on the quality of valuation underlying decision? Perhaps
                                  > all these questions are wholly Germanic. Any takers?
                                  >
                                  > Louise
                                  >
                                • Trinidad Cruz
                                  What is anthropomorphizing in the sense you are using it? I assume you mean ascribing human form to a thing other than human. Consider again paradigm
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    What is anthropomorphizing in the sense you are using it? I assume you
                                    mean ascribing human form to a thing other than human. Consider again
                                    paradigm instability in the application of logic to literature.
                                    Literature itself is already human, but it can and almost always does
                                    produce reflections on existence that are not human. I often post the
                                    poetry of Hart Crane here. His work has flashes of anthropomorphism.
                                    Many poets are self didactic in this fashion. Crane is a profound
                                    example of the consequences of attempting to overcome human self truth
                                    for philosophical reasons. Some things about us are what they are.
                                    Self-determinism runs deeper in our fundamental being than trying to
                                    be something in the world of being. Philosophy utterly fails this
                                    capacity of literature and erects defining purposes. It may be our
                                    nature to do so, as Dennett seems to conclude, but such a conclusion
                                    itself underestimates literature. If there is any generative framework
                                    acceptable to existentialism it is this capacity of literature to be
                                    anthropomorphic, however there can be no systemic organized source for
                                    inspiration or conclusion other than being human, and it can only work
                                    on an individual basis. Philosophy in general is an ignorance
                                    discipline, that is an endless teaching and unteaching process of
                                    unstable paradigms of logic.Metaphysics fails in that its focus is
                                    upon what it falsely assumes is able to focused on for a purpose. That
                                    literature is only truly anthropomorphic to the individual that has
                                    produced it; and that philosophical literature is a random mosaic of
                                    logic engaging uncontrollably shifting paradigms of view; is the
                                    reason why most obviously anthropomorphic literature is produced by
                                    people in denial of self-meaning due to the consequences of
                                    philosophical conclusions that obviate an anthropomorphic view of
                                    literature. I'm tired of typing anthropomorphic too. Let's abbreviate
                                    to "anmorph". Finally the existentialist does not assume that there is
                                    a purpose to being other than being, and it is the first purpose. What
                                    comes out of it may be something else or nothing at all. Philosophy
                                    believes in the power and value of edifice. Existentialism is not even
                                    sure if the human being is an edifice, or real artifact, it simply
                                    embraces what seems to be with an expectation of being and the end
                                    fact of not being. The passion of existentialism is deeply desiring to
                                    be even though its pretty obvious that one won't be for long. I will
                                    continue if you like but it will have to be later. I have a matter to
                                    deal with for the next few hours.

                                    tc

                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Thanks TC. Nice starting point for (maybe) a good discussion.
                                    >
                                    > You wrote: "Writing about something is not anthropomorphizing it.
                                    ...[L]iterature is a product of anthropomorphizing motion and
                                    resonance upon matter and motion. Philosophy is in denial."
                                    >
                                    > In a strong sense, it really is about anthropomorphizing (geeze,
                                    that is a drag to write). Plato makes the case (in the Phaedrus) that
                                    language creates a pantheon of minor gods when it generalizes words
                                    into concepts. Whenever a concept becomes a generative one, in a sense
                                    it takes on the role of a god. Just as the anthropomorphizing of
                                    objects in primitive societies makes of them virtual demigods, the
                                    generalization of a human affect or pathos (bathos?) makes of it
                                    something superhuman, or radically Ur-human. Sometimes a philosophical
                                    'system' will try to use a static dialectic to assuage that tyranny of
                                    concept (classic dualisms, for example), but all that they do is
                                    create a pantheon of reductions. (I think Hegel best treats the problem.)
                                    >
                                    > Existentialism, as I have understood it, resists such 'obeisance'
                                    to any generative conceptual framework (i.e.,
                                    metaphysics-simpliciter). It is finally all about freedom.
                                    >
                                    > What say you, comrade?
                                    >
                                    > Wil
                                    >
                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                    > From: cruzprdb@...
                                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Sent: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 9:46 AM
                                    > Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain
                                    >
                                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                    >
                                    > "There are philosophical positions like yours. Hobbes comes to mind.
                                    > De Sade. Some of the Italian Futurists. But calling that
                                    > "existentialist" is very dubious."
                                    >
                                    > It does not matter if their are philosophical positions that appear
                                    > similar to my view. My view is not a philosophical position, more like
                                    > the fools.
                                    >
                                    > "I agree with your premises, for the most part, but not with the
                                    > manner by which you generalize from them. Making 'War' into a virtual
                                    > metaphysic is still metaphysics, the one thing that existentialism is
                                    > most wary of. It also comes very close to being a radical Nihilism.
                                    > While nihilism is a necessary moment in one's independence from
                                    > metaphysics (as in Nietzsche), it can turn into one (that is, a
                                    > metaphysics) if left as an axiom. It also becomes, as Nietzsche has so
                                    > decisively shown, an anti-life, anti-worldly point of view, even as it
                                    > seems to be affirming some place in the world by virtue of its
                                    > negativity."
                                    >
                                    > Again, how is accepting that violence is intrinsic to being
                                    > threatening to being?
                                    >
                                    > "Also, Darwinian evolution does not turn on the notion of violence,
                                    > but rather on survival. Survival can take many forms, symbiosis for
                                    > example."
                                    >
                                    > Actually evolution turns on motion.
                                    >
                                    > "Finally, the fact that things eat other things does not mean that one
                                    > can generalize an ethics from that."
                                    >
                                    > Actual ethics can only be generated from fact. I am not a pragmatist.
                                    > If we are cannibals we should generate ethics about it.
                                    >
                                    > "Anthropormorphosing the natural world into a glorification of cruelty
                                    > is certainly not an existential insight."
                                    >
                                    > Writing about something is not anthropomorphizing it. In fact writing
                                    > at all is because literature is a product of anthropomorphizing motion
                                    > and resonance upon matter and motion. Philosophy is in
                                    > denial.Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                                    > seems to be.
                                    >
                                    > tc
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > -----Original Message-----
                                    > > From: cruzprdb@
                                    > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > Sent: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:12 AM
                                    > > Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain
                                    > >
                                    > > Wil,
                                    > >
                                    > > I do not think that one can argue that violence is an external
                                    quality
                                    > > in the human race. It seems so because it is acted out, but no, it is
                                    > > natural, a natural part of what a human being is. Also, evolution
                                    (the
                                    > > genesis of things) is a violent process and all human beings are
                                    > > violent. Violence is not a bacteria or a virus, a thought or a
                                    theory,
                                    > > a gene or a even a meme. It is simply natural. Tolerating it or not
                                    > > tolerating it is not ethically important to the existentialist,
                                    just a
                                    > > matter construction or deconstruction. Philosophy falls entirely into
                                    > > confusion in its failure to recognize a simple natural fact. Our
                                    > > species is naturally violent. All our literature, all
                                    epistemology, is
                                    > > naturally violent. It is in fact violent to end an incidence of
                                    > > violence. It is senseless to isolate the idea of violence from the
                                    > > idea of human being and argue its merit. Its merit is natural. It is
                                    > > part of what we are, and part of how we have come to be.
                                    Everything we
                                    > > make is imbued with it. That includes literature and philosophy. The
                                    > > existentialist must seek something other than peace as it cannot be
                                    > > found or constructed in what is real. Switching paradigms to the
                                    story
                                    > > of things does not make peace anything other than a fairy tale. There
                                    > > are no arguments otherwise. The philosopher can seek whatever he/she
                                    > > wants in the story of things, but it is not really there. The
                                    > > existentialist must continue to break with abstract rationalism.
                                    Let's
                                    > > face it. Our species is nearly omnivarous. Tripping over words may be
                                    > > elegant to some branches of philosophy, but it cannot be ethically so
                                    > > for the existentialist. Philosophy has wasted the time of the species
                                    > > attempting to construct what cannot be constructed. For the
                                    > > existentialist; if there is any onward possibility, it cannot be
                                    found
                                    > > by attempting to be what we are not. If philosophy seeks peace, it is
                                    > > merely an ideology, and outside the paradigm of an existentialism.
                                    > > Authenticity is essentially human maturity. How can something, that
                                    > > endlessly argues against being what it is, mature?
                                    > >
                                    > > tc
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > tc,
                                    > > >
                                    > > > All ethics, if it is a grounded ethics or at least addresses the
                                    > > real world
                                    > > > of real people, is involved in factical reality, or else it is
                                    > > nonsense. Even
                                    > > > the merest proscriptive ethics still deals with people here and
                                    now.
                                    > > An ethics
                                    > > > is the one part of philosophy or religion or social codes that
                                    has a
                                    > > factical
                                    > > > weight (as opposed to a metaphysics, for example). An ethics will
                                    > > command one
                                    > > > to either ignore the real world or to engage oneself in it. The
                                    > > former kind of
                                    > > > moral codes are often 'religious', or at least world denying.
                                    > > Existentialism,
                                    > > > at least in the forms that I know it, is an engaged philosophy. It
                                    > > has to be
                                    > > > politically sensitive -- that is it has to be a voice against
                                    > > > socio-political abuses of power and the construction of false
                                    > values.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Because violence is part of life does not mean that violence is
                                    > to be
                                    > > > tolerated at a social level, except under the most rarified of
                                    > > circumstances. To
                                    > > > abstract "war" as a necessary function of the world process is to
                                    > > miss the
                                    > > > specific realities of the subject. There is a tendency, for
                                    example,
                                    > > in science to
                                    > > > understand the most reducted (as in reductionism) plane of
                                    things as
                                    > > the most
                                    > > > real. In that view, quarkes are 'more real' than suns. That kind of
                                    > > view would
                                    > > > opine that genes fight wars. But that is an obfuscation of reality.
                                    > > Genes do
                                    > > > not fight wars. People do. Genes do not construct torture chambers,
                                    > > people do.
                                    > > > Abstraction, therefore, can often miss the point entirely.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Any reduction of "the world" to a "this" or "that" will miss that
                                    > > worls, will
                                    > > > falsify it. That is the story of philosophy, a story that
                                    > > Existentialism was
                                    > > > most responsible of reminding us.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Or so I think.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Wil
                                    > > >
                                    > > > PS Watch out for those 'turns'.
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > In a message dated 9/17/06 10:29:13 PM, cruzprdb@ writes:
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Thank you for the comment Wil, but in an ethical sense I am not
                                    > > > > actually addressing philosophical integrity.I am referring to an
                                    > > > > ethics of facticity. Many things are ambiguous, but I do not
                                    > think an
                                    > > > > existentialist can ethically switch paradigms to address a
                                    > constructed
                                    > > > > dilemma. War is ideological. Existentialism is not.Violence is
                                    > a human
                                    > > > > quality, arguably existing before literature and continuing
                                    after.
                                    > > > > After all this time I do not think it can be argued that it is a
                                    > > > > vestigial quality, as that would be to exceed the limitation of
                                    > > > > epistemology. epistemology.<wbr>(literature has come of huma
                                    > > > > Philosophy has largely failed to notice this limitation. or
                                    > ignored it
                                    > > > > for ideological reasons. It is arguably up to existentialism to
                                    > deal
                                    > > > > with this misplacement of value. I have taken a turn recently,
                                    > and I
                                    > > > > will be posting more on this subject matter. I have great
                                    > difficulty
                                    > > > > writing about it so I hope whoever is interested will bear with
                                    > me a
                                    > > > > bit. It was whispered into me a long time ago. The mud washed
                                    > off the
                                    > > > > hole a day or two ago.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > tc
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > __________________________________________________________
                                    > > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
                                    > security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
                                    > across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ________________________________________________________________________
                                    > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
                                    security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
                                    across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                  • Trinidad Cruz
                                    I m not much of a philosopher Lou. All is not a relevant term to an existentialist, except for conjecture, or wagering. I suspect we re all going to die,
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I'm not much of a philosopher Lou. "All" is not a relevant term to an
                                      existentialist, except for conjecture, or wagering. I suspect we're
                                      "all" going to die, whatever that is. Stuff just seems to be, and if
                                      you wanna be bad enough - you find a way to deal with it. Otherwise
                                      you don't: deal with it - or actualy be enough to have been. Dust in
                                      the wind baby.

                                      tc

                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                                      > > seems to be.
                                      >
                                      > Aistheesis, the perceiving. Ethos, custom, usage. In relation to
                                      > what seems to be, we contemplate, we act. What is the will? Does
                                      > such concept bypass the notion of choice, throwing all hazard to the
                                      > strength of desire and decision? Are all choices confined to the
                                      > aesthetic domain, whereas an act of will would be ethical? Or would
                                      > that depend on the quality of valuation underlying decision? Perhaps
                                      > all these questions are wholly Germanic. Any takers?
                                      >
                                      > Louise
                                      >
                                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                                      Me too. Response to come later as well. Wil ... From: cruzprdb@wi.rr.com To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:24 PM Subject: [existlist] Re:
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Me too. Response to come later as well.

                                        Wil

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: cruzprdb@...
                                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:24 PM
                                        Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain

                                        What is anthropomorphizing in the sense you are using it? I assume you
                                        mean ascribing human form to a thing other than human. Consider again
                                        paradigm instability in the application of logic to literature.
                                        Literature itself is already human, but it can and almost always does
                                        produce reflections on existence that are not human. I often post the
                                        poetry of Hart Crane here. His work has flashes of anthropomorphism.
                                        Many poets are self didactic in this fashion. Crane is a profound
                                        example of the consequences of attempting to overcome human self truth
                                        for philosophical reasons. Some things about us are what they are.
                                        Self-determinism runs deeper in our fundamental being than trying to
                                        be something in the world of being. Philosophy utterly fails this
                                        capacity of literature and erects defining purposes. It may be our
                                        nature to do so, as Dennett seems to conclude, but such a conclusion
                                        itself underestimates literature. If there is any generative framework
                                        acceptable to existentialism it is this capacity of literature to be
                                        anthropomorphic, however there can be no systemic organized source for
                                        inspiration or conclusion other than being human, and it can only work
                                        on an individual basis. Philosophy in general is an ignorance
                                        discipline, that is an endless teaching and unteaching process of
                                        unstable paradigms of logic.Metaphysics fails in that its focus is
                                        upon what it falsely assumes is able to focused on for a purpose. That
                                        literature is only truly anthropomorphic to the individual that has
                                        produced it; and that philosophical literature is a random mosaic of
                                        logic engaging uncontrollably shifting paradigms of view; is the
                                        reason why most obviously anthropomorphic literature is produced by
                                        people in denial of self-meaning due to the consequences of
                                        philosophical conclusions that obviate an anthropomorphic view of
                                        literature. I'm tired of typing anthropomorphic too. Let's abbreviate
                                        to "anmorph". Finally the existentialist does not assume that there is
                                        a purpose to being other than being, and it is the first purpose. What
                                        comes out of it may be something else or nothing at all. Philosophy
                                        believes in the power and value of edifice. Existentialism is not even
                                        sure if the human being is an edifice, or real artifact, it simply
                                        embraces what seems to be with an expectation of being and the end
                                        fact of not being. The passion of existentialism is deeply desiring to
                                        be even though its pretty obvious that one won't be for long. I will
                                        continue if you like but it will have to be later. I have a matter to
                                        deal with for the next few hours.

                                        tc

                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Thanks TC. Nice starting point for (maybe) a good discussion.
                                        >
                                        > You wrote: "Writing about something is not anthropomorphizing it.
                                        ...[L]iterature is a product of anthropomorphizing motion and
                                        resonance upon matter and motion. Philosophy is in denial."
                                        >
                                        > In a strong sense, it really is about anthropomorphizing (geeze,
                                        that is a drag to write). Plato makes the case (in the Phaedrus) that
                                        language creates a pantheon of minor gods when it generalizes words
                                        into concepts. Whenever a concept becomes a generative one, in a sense
                                        it takes on the role of a god. Just as the anthropomorphizing of
                                        objects in primitive societies makes of them virtual demigods, the
                                        generalization of a human affect or pathos (bathos?) makes of it
                                        something superhuman, or radically Ur-human. Sometimes a philosophical
                                        'system' will try to use a static dialectic to assuage that tyranny of
                                        concept (classic dualisms, for example), but all that they do is
                                        create a pantheon of reductions. (I think Hegel best treats the problem.)
                                        >
                                        > Existentialism, as I have understood it, resists such 'obeisance'
                                        to any generative conceptual framework (i.e.,
                                        metaphysics-simpliciter). It is finally all about freedom.
                                        >
                                        > What say you, comrade?
                                        >
                                        > Wil
                                        >
                                        > -----Original Message-----
                                        > From: cruzprdb@...
                                        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Sent: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 9:46 AM
                                        > Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain
                                        >
                                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                        >
                                        > "There are philosophical positions like yours. Hobbes comes to mind.
                                        > De Sade. Some of the Italian Futurists. But calling that
                                        > "existentialist" is very dubious."
                                        >
                                        > It does not matter if their are philosophical positions that appear
                                        > similar to my view. My view is not a philosophical position, more like
                                        > the fools.
                                        >
                                        > "I agree with your premises, for the most part, but not with the
                                        > manner by which you generalize from them. Making 'War' into a virtual
                                        > metaphysic is still metaphysics, the one thing that existentialism is
                                        > most wary of. It also comes very close to being a radical Nihilism.
                                        > While nihilism is a necessary moment in one's independence from
                                        > metaphysics (as in Nietzsche), it can turn into one (that is, a
                                        > metaphysics) if left as an axiom. It also becomes, as Nietzsche has so
                                        > decisively shown, an anti-life, anti-worldly point of view, even as it
                                        > seems to be affirming some place in the world by virtue of its
                                        > negativity."
                                        >
                                        > Again, how is accepting that violence is intrinsic to being
                                        > threatening to being?
                                        >
                                        > "Also, Darwinian evolution does not turn on the notion of violence,
                                        > but rather on survival. Survival can take many forms, symbiosis for
                                        > example."
                                        >
                                        > Actually evolution turns on motion.
                                        >
                                        > "Finally, the fact that things eat other things does not mean that one
                                        > can generalize an ethics from that."
                                        >
                                        > Actual ethics can only be generated from fact. I am not a pragmatist.
                                        > If we are cannibals we should generate ethics about it.
                                        >
                                        > "Anthropormorphosing the natural world into a glorification of cruelty
                                        > is certainly not an existential insight."
                                        >
                                        > Writing about something is not anthropomorphizing it. In fact writing
                                        > at all is because literature is a product of anthropomorphizing motion
                                        > and resonance upon matter and motion. Philosophy is in
                                        > denial.Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                                        > seems to be.
                                        >
                                        > tc
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > -----Original Message-----
                                        > > From: cruzprdb@
                                        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > Sent: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:12 AM
                                        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain
                                        > >
                                        > > Wil,
                                        > >
                                        > > I do not think that one can argue that violence is an external
                                        quality
                                        > > in the human race. It seems so because it is acted out, but no, it is
                                        > > natural, a natural part of what a human being is. Also, evolution
                                        (the
                                        > > genesis of things) is a violent process and all human beings are
                                        > > violent. Violence is not a bacteria or a virus, a thought or a
                                        theory,
                                        > > a gene or a even a meme. It is simply natural. Tolerating it or not
                                        > > tolerating it is not ethically important to the existentialist,
                                        just a
                                        > > matter construction or deconstruction. Philosophy falls entirely into
                                        > > confusion in its failure to recognize a simple natural fact. Our
                                        > > species is naturally violent. All our literature, all
                                        epistemology, is
                                        > > naturally violent. It is in fact violent to end an incidence of
                                        > > violence. It is senseless to isolate the idea of violence from the
                                        > > idea of human being and argue its merit. Its merit is natural. It is
                                        > > part of what we are, and part of how we have come to be.
                                        Everything we
                                        > > make is imbued with it. That includes literature and philosophy. The
                                        > > existentialist must seek something other than peace as it cannot be
                                        > > found or constructed in what is real. Switching paradigms to the
                                        story
                                        > > of things does not make peace anything other than a fairy tale. There
                                        > > are no arguments otherwise. The philosopher can seek whatever he/she
                                        > > wants in the story of things, but it is not really there. The
                                        > > existentialist must continue to break with abstract rationalism.
                                        Let's
                                        > > face it. Our species is nearly omnivarous. Tripping over words may be
                                        > > elegant to some branches of philosophy, but it cannot be ethically so
                                        > > for the existentialist. Philosophy has wasted the time of the species
                                        > > attempting to construct what cannot be constructed. For the
                                        > > existentialist; if there is any onward possibility, it cannot be
                                        found
                                        > > by attempting to be what we are not. If philosophy seeks peace, it is
                                        > > merely an ideology, and outside the paradigm of an existentialism.
                                        > > Authenticity is essentially human maturity. How can something, that
                                        > > endlessly argues against being what it is, mature?
                                        > >
                                        > > tc
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > tc,
                                        > > >
                                        > > > All ethics, if it is a grounded ethics or at least addresses the
                                        > > real world
                                        > > > of real people, is involved in factical reality, or else it is
                                        > > nonsense. Even
                                        > > > the merest proscriptive ethics still deals with people here and
                                        now.
                                        > > An ethics
                                        > > > is the one part of philosophy or religion or social codes that
                                        has a
                                        > > factical
                                        > > > weight (as opposed to a metaphysics, for example). An ethics will
                                        > > command one
                                        > > > to either ignore the real world or to engage oneself in it. The
                                        > > former kind of
                                        > > > moral codes are often 'religious', or at least world denying.
                                        > > Existentialism,
                                        > > > at least in the forms that I know it, is an engaged philosophy. It
                                        > > has to be
                                        > > > politically sensitive -- that is it has to be a voice against
                                        > > > socio-political abuses of power and the construction of false
                                        > values.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Because violence is part of life does not mean that violence is
                                        > to be
                                        > > > tolerated at a social level, except under the most rarified of
                                        > > circumstances. To
                                        > > > abstract "war" as a necessary function of the world process is to
                                        > > miss the
                                        > > > specific realities of the subject. There is a tendency, for
                                        example,
                                        > > in science to
                                        > > > understand the most reducted (as in reductionism) plane of
                                        things as
                                        > > the most
                                        > > > real. In that view, quarkes are 'more real' than suns. That kind of
                                        > > view would
                                        > > > opine that genes fight wars. But that is an obfuscation of reality.
                                        > > Genes do
                                        > > > not fight wars. People do. Genes do not construct torture chambers,
                                        > > people do.
                                        > > > Abstraction, therefore, can often miss the point entirely.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Any reduction of "the world" to a "this" or "that" will miss that
                                        > > worls, will
                                        > > > falsify it. That is the story of philosophy, a story that
                                        > > Existentialism was
                                        > > > most responsible of reminding us.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Or so I think.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Wil
                                        > > >
                                        > > > PS Watch out for those 'turns'.
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > In a message dated 9/17/06 10:29:13 PM, cruzprdb@ writes:
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Thank you for the comment Wil, but in an ethical sense I am not
                                        > > > > actually addressing philosophical integrity.I am referring to an
                                        > > > > ethics of facticity. Many things are ambiguous, but I do not
                                        > think an
                                        > > > > existentialist can ethically switch paradigms to address a
                                        > constructed
                                        > > > > dilemma. War is ideological. Existentialism is not.Violence is
                                        > a human
                                        > > > > quality, arguably existing before literature and continuing
                                        after.
                                        > > > > After all this time I do not think it can be argued that it is a
                                        > > > > vestigial quality, as that would be to exceed the limitation of
                                        > > > > epistemology. epistemology.<wbr>(literature has come of huma
                                        > > > > Philosophy has largely failed to notice this limitation. or
                                        > ignored it
                                        > > > > for ideological reasons. It is arguably up to existentialism to
                                        > deal
                                        > > > > with this misplacement of value. I have taken a turn recently,
                                        > and I
                                        > > > > will be posting more on this subject matter. I have great
                                        > difficulty
                                        > > > > writing about it so I hope whoever is interested will bear with
                                        > me a
                                        > > > > bit. It was whispered into me a long time ago. The mud washed
                                        > off the
                                        > > > > hole a day or two ago.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > tc
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > __________________________________________________________
                                        > > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
                                        > security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
                                        > across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > __________________________________________________________
                                        > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
                                        security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
                                        across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >


                                        ________________________________________________________________________
                                        Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • louise
                                        ... Yes, my mistake. You re not Nietzschean, so am not Lou to you, evidently. Bad enough? Don t understand. Life is matter of wonder to me. Louise
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > I'm not much of a philosopher Lou. "All" is not a relevant term to an
                                          > existentialist, except for conjecture, or wagering. I suspect we're
                                          > "all" going to die, whatever that is. Stuff just seems to be, and if
                                          > you wanna be bad enough - you find a way to deal with it. Otherwise
                                          > you don't: deal with it - or actualy be enough to have been. Dust in
                                          > the wind baby.
                                          >
                                          > tc


                                          Yes, my mistake. You're not Nietzschean, so am not Lou to you,
                                          evidently. Bad enough? Don't understand. Life is matter of wonder
                                          to me.

                                          Louise
                                        • louise
                                          What a Celtic response :-). As to philosophical specifics, though, we may be at cross purposes. Have you clear conception of that which does not lie in the
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            What a Celtic response :-). As to philosophical specifics, though,
                                            we may be at cross purposes. Have you clear conception of that
                                            which does not lie in the "what seems" realm of existence?
                                            Platonism, for instance, does not resonate much with me. The
                                            categorial distinction I sought to make within the realm of what
                                            seems, is that between preference (choice), and will (decision).
                                            Still finding it slow process, though, to make my expression clear.

                                            Louise

                                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <agignesthai@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Wholly Germanic, I fear. Trying to sort these, when my goal is to
                                            > accept such opposites and nuances, gives me a headache. It seems
                                            such a
                                            > a natural thing: decide, then act. To dissect these in the "what
                                            seems"
                                            > realm of existence, though often mystical indeed, seems rather
                                            > abstract. Can you give an example? Mary
                                            >
                                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > > Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                                            > > > seems to be.
                                            > >
                                            > > Aistheesis, the perceiving. Ethos, custom, usage. In relation
                                            to
                                            > > what seems to be, we contemplate, we act. What is the will?
                                            Does
                                            > > such concept bypass the notion of choice, throwing all hazard to
                                            the
                                            > > strength of desire and decision? Are all choices confined to
                                            the
                                            > > aesthetic domain, whereas an act of will would be ethical? Or
                                            would
                                            > > that depend on the quality of valuation underlying decision?
                                            Perhaps
                                            > > all these questions are wholly Germanic. Any takers?
                                            > >
                                            > > Louise
                                            > >
                                            >
                                          • Mary
                                            ... to
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > What a Celtic response :-). As to philosophical specifics, though,
                                              > we may be at cross purposes. Have you clear conception of that
                                              > which does not lie in the "what seems" realm of existence?
                                              > Platonism, for instance, does not resonate much with me. The
                                              > categorial distinction I sought to make within the realm of what
                                              > seems, is that between preference (choice), and will (decision).
                                              > Still finding it slow process, though, to make my expression clear.
                                              >
                                              > Louise
                                              >
                                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <agignesthai@> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > Wholly Germanic, I fear. Trying to sort these, when my goal is to
                                              > > accept such opposites and nuances, gives me a headache. It seems
                                              > such a
                                              > > a natural thing: decide, then act. To dissect these in the "what
                                              > seems"
                                              > > realm of existence, though often mystical indeed, seems rather
                                              > > abstract. Can you give an example? Mary
                                              > >
                                              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > > Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                                              > > > > seems to be.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Aistheesis, the perceiving. Ethos, custom, usage. In relation
                                              > to
                                              > > > what seems to be, we contemplate, we act. What is the will?
                                              > Does
                                              > > > such concept bypass the notion of choice, throwing all hazard
                                              to
                                              > the
                                              > > > strength of desire and decision? Are all choices confined to
                                              > the
                                              > > > aesthetic domain, whereas an act of will would be ethical? Or
                                              > would
                                              > > > that depend on the quality of valuation underlying decision?
                                              > Perhaps
                                              > > > all these questions are wholly Germanic. Any takers?
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Louise
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                            • Mary
                                              I have an evolving conception of what seems , meaning that each perception, previously & nebulously un/defined, now becomes part of my new what seems . The
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I have an evolving conception of "what seems", meaning that each
                                                perception, previously & nebulously un/defined, now becomes part of
                                                my new "what seems". The decision process involves biological(will);
                                                aesthetic (emotional appeal); and determination (will & cognition).
                                                Our choice is the result? Let's keep at it. Mary

                                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > What a Celtic response :-). As to philosophical specifics, though,
                                                > we may be at cross purposes. Have you clear conception of that
                                                > which does not lie in the "what seems" realm of existence?
                                                > Platonism, for instance, does not resonate much with me. The
                                                > categorial distinction I sought to make within the realm of what
                                                > seems, is that between preference (choice), and will (decision).
                                                > Still finding it slow process, though, to make my expression clear.
                                                >
                                                > Louise
                                                >
                                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <agignesthai@> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > Wholly Germanic, I fear. Trying to sort these, when my goal is to
                                                > > accept such opposites and nuances, gives me a headache. It seems
                                                > such a
                                                > > a natural thing: decide, then act. To dissect these in the "what
                                                > seems"
                                                > > realm of existence, though often mystical indeed, seems rather
                                                > > abstract. Can you give an example? Mary
                                                > >
                                                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
                                                > > >
                                                > > > > Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                                                > > > > seems to be.
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Aistheesis, the perceiving. Ethos, custom, usage. In relation
                                                > to
                                                > > > what seems to be, we contemplate, we act. What is the will?
                                                > Does
                                                > > > such concept bypass the notion of choice, throwing all hazard
                                                to
                                                > the
                                                > > > strength of desire and decision? Are all choices confined to
                                                > the
                                                > > > aesthetic domain, whereas an act of will would be ethical? Or
                                                > would
                                                > > > that depend on the quality of valuation underlying decision?
                                                > Perhaps
                                                > > > all these questions are wholly Germanic. Any takers?
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Louise
                                                > > >
                                                > >
                                                >
                                              • Trinidad Cruz
                                                It has occurred to me Wil that perhaps you meant to engage my view as anthropocentric; a common criticism availed upon humanism and sometimes existentialism. I
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Sep 19, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  It has occurred to me Wil that perhaps you meant to engage my view as
                                                  anthropocentric; a common criticism availed upon humanism and
                                                  sometimes existentialism. I would say that humanism and my
                                                  exsistentialism could be described so, but only a terrestial sense.
                                                  The planet may arguably have an indicative necessity for human beings,
                                                  especially when the acts of such beings can jeapordize the planets
                                                  existence, but even our galaxy is only a thin thin thin random ribbon
                                                  of resonance to the universe. I doubt the end of this species on this
                                                  little planet will jeapordize the future of the universe, or even
                                                  achieve any particular notice there, and would not argue so. Our
                                                  problem is our problem, the size of our planet in its insignificance
                                                  and significance, no larger, no smaller. That aside, I think the term
                                                  we are seeking here specifically regarding the presentation of
                                                  literature in our species is anthropogenic. I would say literature
                                                  regularly engages in kind of anthropopathy, but not real
                                                  anthropomorphy. There is no corpus, only a constructed dream. The body
                                                  has to turn up eventually. In any case what I am saying is: that
                                                  literature is part of being human, and as such, may not with purpose
                                                  manufacture humanity as it already is that; it may (to our great
                                                  misfortune) with purpose manufacture anthropopathic instances;
                                                  instances that grow within generations of people infested with
                                                  syncretist passion; with the consequences that such non-personal
                                                  instances simply intuitively force the shedding of human blood to
                                                  acheive validation or human philosophical authenticity. The corpse is
                                                  sought to prove the case. For the existentialist violence is a
                                                  self-determined human quality. The pacifist seeks its validation
                                                  regardless of his intent, with the same exhibition as the violent –
                                                  the corpse. The existentialist says: "You'll have that," and moves
                                                  toward authenticity.

                                                  tc

                                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Me too. Response to come later as well.
                                                  >
                                                  > Wil
                                                  >
                                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                                  > From: cruzprdb@...
                                                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > Sent: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:24 PM
                                                  > Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain
                                                  >
                                                  > What is anthropomorphizing in the sense you are using it? I
                                                  assume you
                                                  > mean ascribing human form to a thing other than human. Consider again
                                                  > paradigm instability in the application of logic to literature.
                                                  > Literature itself is already human, but it can and almost always does
                                                  > produce reflections on existence that are not human. I often post the
                                                  > poetry of Hart Crane here. His work has flashes of anthropomorphism.
                                                  > Many poets are self didactic in this fashion. Crane is a profound
                                                  > example of the consequences of attempting to overcome human self truth
                                                  > for philosophical reasons. Some things about us are what they are.
                                                  > Self-determinism runs deeper in our fundamental being than trying to
                                                  > be something in the world of being. Philosophy utterly fails this
                                                  > capacity of literature and erects defining purposes. It may be our
                                                  > nature to do so, as Dennett seems to conclude, but such a conclusion
                                                  > itself underestimates literature. If there is any generative framework
                                                  > acceptable to existentialism it is this capacity of literature to be
                                                  > anthropomorphic, however there can be no systemic organized source for
                                                  > inspiration or conclusion other than being human, and it can only work
                                                  > on an individual basis. Philosophy in general is an ignorance
                                                  > discipline, that is an endless teaching and unteaching process of
                                                  > unstable paradigms of logic.Metaphysics fails in that its focus is
                                                  > upon what it falsely assumes is able to focused on for a purpose. That
                                                  > literature is only truly anthropomorphic to the individual that has
                                                  > produced it; and that philosophical literature is a random mosaic of
                                                  > logic engaging uncontrollably shifting paradigms of view; is the
                                                  > reason why most obviously anthropomorphic literature is produced by
                                                  > people in denial of self-meaning due to the consequences of
                                                  > philosophical conclusions that obviate an anthropomorphic view of
                                                  > literature. I'm tired of typing anthropomorphic too. Let's abbreviate
                                                  > to "anmorph". Finally the existentialist does not assume that there is
                                                  > a purpose to being other than being, and it is the first purpose. What
                                                  > comes out of it may be something else or nothing at all. Philosophy
                                                  > believes in the power and value of edifice. Existentialism is not even
                                                  > sure if the human being is an edifice, or real artifact, it simply
                                                  > embraces what seems to be with an expectation of being and the end
                                                  > fact of not being. The passion of existentialism is deeply desiring to
                                                  > be even though its pretty obvious that one won't be for long. I will
                                                  > continue if you like but it will have to be later. I have a matter to
                                                  > deal with for the next few hours.
                                                  >
                                                  > tc
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Thanks TC. Nice starting point for (maybe) a good discussion.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > You wrote: "Writing about something is not anthropomorphizing it.
                                                  > ...[L]iterature is a product of anthropomorphizing motion and
                                                  > resonance upon matter and motion. Philosophy is in denial."
                                                  > >
                                                  > > In a strong sense, it really is about anthropomorphizing (geeze,
                                                  > that is a drag to write). Plato makes the case (in the Phaedrus) that
                                                  > language creates a pantheon of minor gods when it generalizes words
                                                  > into concepts. Whenever a concept becomes a generative one, in a sense
                                                  > it takes on the role of a god. Just as the anthropomorphizing of
                                                  > objects in primitive societies makes of them virtual demigods, the
                                                  > generalization of a human affect or pathos (bathos?) makes of it
                                                  > something superhuman, or radically Ur-human. Sometimes a philosophical
                                                  > 'system' will try to use a static dialectic to assuage that tyranny of
                                                  > concept (classic dualisms, for example), but all that they do is
                                                  > create a pantheon of reductions. (I think Hegel best treats the
                                                  problem.)
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Existentialism, as I have understood it, resists such 'obeisance'
                                                  > to any generative conceptual framework (i.e.,
                                                  > metaphysics-simpliciter). It is finally all about freedom.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > What say you, comrade?
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Wil
                                                  > >
                                                  > > -----Original Message-----
                                                  > > From: cruzprdb@
                                                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > > Sent: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 9:46 AM
                                                  > > Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain
                                                  > >
                                                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > "There are philosophical positions like yours. Hobbes comes to mind.
                                                  > > De Sade. Some of the Italian Futurists. But calling that
                                                  > > "existentialist" is very dubious."
                                                  > >
                                                  > > It does not matter if their are philosophical positions that appear
                                                  > > similar to my view. My view is not a philosophical position, more
                                                  like
                                                  > > the fools.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > "I agree with your premises, for the most part, but not with the
                                                  > > manner by which you generalize from them. Making 'War' into a virtual
                                                  > > metaphysic is still metaphysics, the one thing that existentialism is
                                                  > > most wary of. It also comes very close to being a radical Nihilism.
                                                  > > While nihilism is a necessary moment in one's independence from
                                                  > > metaphysics (as in Nietzsche), it can turn into one (that is, a
                                                  > > metaphysics) if left as an axiom. It also becomes, as Nietzsche
                                                  has so
                                                  > > decisively shown, an anti-life, anti-worldly point of view, even
                                                  as it
                                                  > > seems to be affirming some place in the world by virtue of its
                                                  > > negativity."
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Again, how is accepting that violence is intrinsic to being
                                                  > > threatening to being?
                                                  > >
                                                  > > "Also, Darwinian evolution does not turn on the notion of violence,
                                                  > > but rather on survival. Survival can take many forms, symbiosis for
                                                  > > example."
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Actually evolution turns on motion.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > "Finally, the fact that things eat other things does not mean
                                                  that one
                                                  > > can generalize an ethics from that."
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Actual ethics can only be generated from fact. I am not a pragmatist.
                                                  > > If we are cannibals we should generate ethics about it.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > "Anthropormorphosing the natural world into a glorification of
                                                  cruelty
                                                  > > is certainly not an existential insight."
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Writing about something is not anthropomorphizing it. In fact writing
                                                  > > at all is because literature is a product of anthropomorphizing
                                                  motion
                                                  > > and resonance upon matter and motion. Philosophy is in
                                                  > > denial.Existentialism is not concerned with glorification, only what
                                                  > > seems to be.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > tc
                                                  > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > -----Original Message-----
                                                  > > > From: cruzprdb@
                                                  > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > > > Sent: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:12 AM
                                                  > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: hard rain
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Wil,
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I do not think that one can argue that violence is an external
                                                  > quality
                                                  > > > in the human race. It seems so because it is acted out, but no,
                                                  it is
                                                  > > > natural, a natural part of what a human being is. Also, evolution
                                                  > (the
                                                  > > > genesis of things) is a violent process and all human beings are
                                                  > > > violent. Violence is not a bacteria or a virus, a thought or a
                                                  > theory,
                                                  > > > a gene or a even a meme. It is simply natural. Tolerating it or not
                                                  > > > tolerating it is not ethically important to the existentialist,
                                                  > just a
                                                  > > > matter construction or deconstruction. Philosophy falls
                                                  entirely into
                                                  > > > confusion in its failure to recognize a simple natural fact. Our
                                                  > > > species is naturally violent. All our literature, all
                                                  > epistemology, is
                                                  > > > naturally violent. It is in fact violent to end an incidence of
                                                  > > > violence. It is senseless to isolate the idea of violence from the
                                                  > > > idea of human being and argue its merit. Its merit is natural.
                                                  It is
                                                  > > > part of what we are, and part of how we have come to be.
                                                  > Everything we
                                                  > > > make is imbued with it. That includes literature and
                                                  philosophy. The
                                                  > > > existentialist must seek something other than peace as it cannot be
                                                  > > > found or constructed in what is real. Switching paradigms to the
                                                  > story
                                                  > > > of things does not make peace anything other than a fairy tale.
                                                  There
                                                  > > > are no arguments otherwise. The philosopher can seek whatever
                                                  he/she
                                                  > > > wants in the story of things, but it is not really there. The
                                                  > > > existentialist must continue to break with abstract rationalism.
                                                  > Let's
                                                  > > > face it. Our species is nearly omnivarous. Tripping over words
                                                  may be
                                                  > > > elegant to some branches of philosophy, but it cannot be
                                                  ethically so
                                                  > > > for the existentialist. Philosophy has wasted the time of the
                                                  species
                                                  > > > attempting to construct what cannot be constructed. For the
                                                  > > > existentialist; if there is any onward possibility, it cannot be
                                                  > found
                                                  > > > by attempting to be what we are not. If philosophy seeks peace,
                                                  it is
                                                  > > > merely an ideology, and outside the paradigm of an existentialism.
                                                  > > > Authenticity is essentially human maturity. How can something, that
                                                  > > > endlessly argues against being what it is, mature?
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > tc
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > tc,
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > All ethics, if it is a grounded ethics or at least addresses the
                                                  > > > real world
                                                  > > > > of real people, is involved in factical reality, or else it is
                                                  > > > nonsense. Even
                                                  > > > > the merest proscriptive ethics still deals with people here and
                                                  > now.
                                                  > > > An ethics
                                                  > > > > is the one part of philosophy or religion or social codes that
                                                  > has a
                                                  > > > factical
                                                  > > > > weight (as opposed to a metaphysics, for example). An ethics will
                                                  > > > command one
                                                  > > > > to either ignore the real world or to engage oneself in it. The
                                                  > > > former kind of
                                                  > > > > moral codes are often 'religious', or at least world denying.
                                                  > > > Existentialism,
                                                  > > > > at least in the forms that I know it, is an engaged
                                                  philosophy. It
                                                  > > > has to be
                                                  > > > > politically sensitive -- that is it has to be a voice against
                                                  > > > > socio-political abuses of power and the construction of false
                                                  > > values.
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > Because violence is part of life does not mean that violence is
                                                  > > to be
                                                  > > > > tolerated at a social level, except under the most rarified of
                                                  > > > circumstances. To
                                                  > > > > abstract "war" as a necessary function of the world process is to
                                                  > > > miss the
                                                  > > > > specific realities of the subject. There is a tendency, for
                                                  > example,
                                                  > > > in science to
                                                  > > > > understand the most reducted (as in reductionism) plane of
                                                  > things as
                                                  > > > the most
                                                  > > > > real. In that view, quarkes are 'more real' than suns. That
                                                  kind of
                                                  > > > view would
                                                  > > > > opine that genes fight wars. But that is an obfuscation of
                                                  reality.
                                                  > > > Genes do
                                                  > > > > not fight wars. People do. Genes do not construct torture
                                                  chambers,
                                                  > > > people do.
                                                  > > > > Abstraction, therefore, can often miss the point entirely.
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > Any reduction of "the world" to a "this" or "that" will miss that
                                                  > > > worls, will
                                                  > > > > falsify it. That is the story of philosophy, a story that
                                                  > > > Existentialism was
                                                  > > > > most responsible of reminding us.
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > Or so I think.
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > Wil
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > PS Watch out for those 'turns'.
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > In a message dated 9/17/06 10:29:13 PM, cruzprdb@ writes:
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > Thank you for the comment Wil, but in an ethical sense I am not
                                                  > > > > > actually addressing philosophical integrity.I am referring
                                                  to an
                                                  > > > > > ethics of facticity. Many things are ambiguous, but I do not
                                                  > > think an
                                                  > > > > > existentialist can ethically switch paradigms to address a
                                                  > > constructed
                                                  > > > > > dilemma. War is ideological. Existentialism is not.Violence is
                                                  > > a human
                                                  > > > > > quality, arguably existing before literature and continuing
                                                  > after.
                                                  > > > > > After all this time I do not think it can be argued that it
                                                  is a
                                                  > > > > > vestigial quality, as that would be to exceed the limitation of
                                                  > > > > > epistemology. epistemology.<wbr>(literature has come of huma
                                                  > > > > > Philosophy has largely failed to notice this limitation. or
                                                  > > ignored it
                                                  > > > > > for ideological reasons. It is arguably up to existentialism to
                                                  > > deal
                                                  > > > > > with this misplacement of value. I have taken a turn recently,
                                                  > > and I
                                                  > > > > > will be posting more on this subject matter. I have great
                                                  > > difficulty
                                                  > > > > > writing about it so I hope whoever is interested will bear with
                                                  > > me a
                                                  > > > > > bit. It was whispered into me a long time ago. The mud washed
                                                  > > off the
                                                  > > > > > hole a day or two ago.
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > tc
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > __________________________________________________________
                                                  > > > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
                                                  > > security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
                                                  > > across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  > > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > __________________________________________________________
                                                  > > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
                                                  > security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
                                                  > across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ________________________________________________________________________
                                                  > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
                                                  security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
                                                  across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                • eupraxis@aol.com
                                                  TC, The insight you are alluding to (I say alluding to, because it will always really escape words, but is so present in our periphery that it always acts as a
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Sep 20, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    TC,

                                                    The insight you are alluding to (I say alluding to, because it will always
                                                    really escape words, but is so present in our periphery that it always acts as a
                                                    corrective to taking anything too seriously) -- that insight smashes up
                                                    whatever hierarchy of concepts is beginning to cast too large a shadow over us. It
                                                    is a negative movement of thought away from hypostatization, reification, or
                                                    whatever one calls it: away from ideas that pose themselves as something
                                                    concrete. It often, as here, levels the presumption of an anthropocentric
                                                    self-importance that couches things as if reality has some special place for us. I do
                                                    understand your point, if I am right.

                                                    That essentially negative moment of realization can itself exaggerate its own
                                                    corrective action and become just another self-motivating all-inclusive
                                                    notion (a metaphysic, in the modern sense). That really was my point. When violence
                                                    becomes too privileged in one's creative imagination, it can lose its
                                                    insightful quality and become something else altogether.

                                                    The other motive for my comments, to tell you the truth, was to try to keep
                                                    the discussions, even the ones that are contentious, aboveboard and well-meant.
                                                    After the posts by 'the one who shall knot be named', it seemed that everyone
                                                    is ready to tear everyone else's head off for the slightest criticism. I hope
                                                    the gesture works and keeps my bones from the grater.

                                                    Wil


                                                    In a message dated 9/19/06 6:17:27 PM, cruzprdb@... writes:


                                                    > It has occurred to me Wil that perhaps you meant to engage my view as
                                                    > anthropocentric; a common criticism availed upon humanism and
                                                    > sometimes existentialism. I would say that humanism and my
                                                    > exsistentialism could be described so, but only a terrestial sense.
                                                    > The planet may arguably have an indicative necessity for human beings,
                                                    > especially when the acts of such beings can jeapordize the planets
                                                    > existence, but even our galaxy is only a thin thin thin random ribbon
                                                    > of resonance to the universe. I doubt the end of this species on this
                                                    > little planet will jeapordize the future of the universe, or even
                                                    > achieve any particular notice there, and would not argue so. Our
                                                    > problem is our problem, the size of our planet in its insignificance
                                                    > and significance, no larger, no smaller. That aside, I think the term
                                                    > we are seeking here specifically regarding the presentation of
                                                    > literature in our species is anthropogenic. I would say literature
                                                    > regularly engages in kind of anthropopathy, but not real
                                                    > anthropomorphy. There is no corpus, only a constructed dream. The body
                                                    > has to turn up eventually. In any case what I am saying is: that
                                                    > literature is part of being human, and as such, may not with purpose
                                                    > manufacture humanity as it already is that; it may (to our great
                                                    > misfortune) with purpose manufacture anthropopathic instances;
                                                    > instances that grow within generations of people infested with
                                                    > syncretist passion; with the consequences that such non-personal
                                                    > instances simply intuitively force the shedding of human blood to
                                                    > acheive validation or human philosophical authenticity. The corpse is
                                                    > sought to prove the case. For the existentialist violence is a
                                                    > self-determined human quality. The pacifist seeks its validation
                                                    > regardless of his intent, with the same exhibition as the violent –
                                                    > the corpse. The existentialist says: "You'll have that," and moves
                                                    > toward authenticity.
                                                    >
                                                    > tc
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >



                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.