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

A self evident system

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    Existentialism was forced to take up a reactive stance. There was no clean slate in which to operate so we became a nominally contra force. How did it become
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Existentialism was forced to take up a reactive stance. There was no
      clean slate in which to operate so we became a nominally contra
      force. How did it become radical to reject mystacism?The species had
      drifted away from reliance on sense knowledge and the existentialists
      were branded as radical by self serving, religous zealots. This
      evidences the horrible reversal in human progress that the science in
      the rennasauance began to affront in the body of stupidity and greed
      left over from the dark ages.
      JPS understood where the deteriorsation was centered and his
      existentialism was godless. I completely reject the concept of
      theistic existentialism, it is completely dichotmous in nature and an
      excuse for throwback thinking to master slave relationships.
      Situations teach response by the factors evident in their unfolding.
      Any preweighting of those factors by moral or eccliastical authority
      destroys the phenominological validity of the activity. You may not
      think as a believer and call yourself an existentialist. If you do you
      are lying to one or both systems as you have lied to yourself.
      This is base level existentialism and without such realisation
      further definitions are absurd. Bill
    • louise
      ... no ... had ... existentialists ... science in ... greed ... an ... unfolding. ... authority ... not ... you ... Bill, It is reasonable for you to reject
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Existentialism was forced to take up a reactive stance. There was
        no
        > clean slate in which to operate so we became a nominally contra
        > force. How did it become radical to reject mystacism?The species
        had
        > drifted away from reliance on sense knowledge and the
        existentialists
        > were branded as radical by self serving, religous zealots. This
        > evidences the horrible reversal in human progress that the
        science in
        > the rennasauance began to affront in the body of stupidity and
        greed
        > left over from the dark ages.
        > JPS understood where the deteriorsation was centered and his
        > existentialism was godless. I completely reject the concept of
        > theistic existentialism, it is completely dichotmous in nature and
        an
        > excuse for throwback thinking to master slave relationships.
        > Situations teach response by the factors evident in their
        unfolding.
        > Any preweighting of those factors by moral or eccliastical
        authority
        > destroys the phenominological validity of the activity. You may
        not
        > think as a believer and call yourself an existentialist. If you do
        you
        > are lying to one or both systems as you have lied to yourself.
        > This is base level existentialism and without such realisation
        > further definitions are absurd. Bill
        >


        Bill, It is reasonable for you to reject the concept of theistic
        existentialism, though your grounds for rejection are hardly likely
        to convince those of us who find coherent Kierkegaard's accounts of
        subjectivity. Since you are intolerant of the Dane's writings, in
        general, the statement that "you may not think as a believer and
        call yourself an existentialist" reads to me like an unargued
        dogma. To reduplicate one's thought in one's existence is
        existentialism as I understand it, practised by SK in ever-ascending
        stages of self-awareness and ethical demand. He also understood the
        fierceness of human resistance to theistic truth, hence the
        inventiveness of his pseudonymous compositions. Louise
      • Mary
        The many descriptions I read about ex. continue to exclude science and include religious terminology. I tolerate and understand theistic ex., but see it as a
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 28, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          The many descriptions I read about ex. continue to exclude science
          and include religious terminology. I tolerate and understand theistic
          ex., but see it as a security blanket or a step in development. I
          don't mean to be condescending, but that's how I view it. To be a
          prophet of immobility or statis in unconscionable in my opinion. All
          around are experiences which elevate and inspire awe, but people
          cling to safe little boxes of reality. My son has received his voter
          registration card before his selective service notification. He's
          leaning towards a career in quantum physics. I should influence him
          with only my cynicism? I wonder how he'll choose: it fascinates
          me ... I first learned about Frank Gehry's architecture last evening.
          It disturbed me in a most profound manner. Possibilities. Put one of
          his buildings in the middle of the Great Plains, not only Bilboa,
          Spain and Iowa. Erect new monuments of creativity, inspire scientific
          and artistic endeavor. These are not vanities. How people change are
          not vanities. Staying stuck is vanity of vanities. Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Existentialism was forced to take up a reactive stance. There was
          no
          > clean slate in which to operate so we became a nominally contra
          > force. How did it become radical to reject mystacism?The species
          had
          > drifted away from reliance on sense knowledge and the
          existentialists
          > were branded as radical by self serving, religous zealots. This
          > evidences the horrible reversal in human progress that the science
          in
          > the rennasauance began to affront in the body of stupidity and
          greed
          > left over from the dark ages.
          > JPS understood where the deteriorsation was centered and his
          > existentialism was godless. I completely reject the concept of
          > theistic existentialism, it is completely dichotmous in nature and
          an
          > excuse for throwback thinking to master slave relationships.
          > Situations teach response by the factors evident in their
          unfolding.
          > Any preweighting of those factors by moral or eccliastical
          authority
          > destroys the phenominological validity of the activity. You may not
          > think as a believer and call yourself an existentialist. If you do
          you
          > are lying to one or both systems as you have lied to yourself.
          > This is base level existentialism and without such realisation
          > further definitions are absurd. Bill
          >
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          Yeah, I never understood what is so existential in theistic existentialism. If there is a god that interferes with the world, where is the freedom? If there is
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Yeah, I never understood what is so existential in theistic existentialism. If there is a god that interferes with the world, where is the freedom? If there is a god that does not, then as Conan remarked, "To Hell with you."

            If your life now is supposedly less real than your 'life' after you are dead (itself a preposterous idea!), then what is so existential about this 'fake' life?

            But I find the whole subject of God to be beyond my understanding, anyway.

            Wil

            -----Original Message-----
            From: v.valleywestdental@...
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:15 PM
            Subject: [existlist] A self evident system

            Existentialism was forced to take up a reactive stance. There was no
            clean slate in which to operate so we became a nominally contra
            force. How did it become radical to reject mystacism?The species had
            drifted away from reliance on sense knowledge and the existentialists
            were branded as radical by self serving, religous zealots. This
            evidences the horrible reversal in human progress that the science in
            the rennasauance began to affront in the body of stupidity and greed
            left over from the dark ages.
            JPS understood where the deteriorsation was centered and his
            existentialism was godless. I completely reject the concept of
            theistic existentialism, it is completely dichotmous in nature and an
            excuse for throwback thinking to master slave relationships.
            Situations teach response by the factors evident in their unfolding.
            Any preweighting of those factors by moral or eccliastical authority
            destroys the phenominological validity of the activity. You may not
            think as a believer and call yourself an existentialist. If you do you
            are lying to one or both systems as you have lied to yourself.
            This is base level existentialism and without such realisation
            further definitions are absurd. Bill


            ________________________________________________________________________
            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
            ... existentialism. If there is a god that interferes with the world, where is the freedom? If there is a god that does not, then as Conan remarked, To Hell
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 29, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
              >
              > Yeah, I never understood what is so existential in theistic
              existentialism. If there is a god that interferes with the world,
              where is the freedom? If there is a god that does not, then as Conan
              remarked, "To Hell with you."
              >
              > If your life now is supposedly less real than your 'life' after
              you are dead (itself a preposterous idea!), then what is so
              existential about this 'fake' life?
              >
              > But I find the whole subject of God to be beyond my
              understanding, anyway.
              >
              > Wil


              Well, that's honest enough. The god in your first paragraph is like
              some item of human manufacture, unbelievable and irrelevant. A
              brief account of transcendent Godhood would be that which makes
              possible in the first place both the concretion of existence and the
              abstraction of essence, not to mention any discussion we may have
              about these ideas, in cyberspace.

              Louise
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              Louise, I say this with no anger or ill will. The god in your first paragraph is like some item of human manufacture, unbelievable and irrelevant Yes, that
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 29, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Louise,

                I say this with no anger or ill will.

                "The god in your first paragraph is like some item of human manufacture,
                unbelievable and irrelevant"

                Yes, that is very true. As far as a "personal" god goes (that is, one that
                you can pray to, etc.), it is "of human manufacture, unbelievable and irrelevant
                ." A completely transcendent god (that is, one you cannot pray to, etc., and
                which is not residing with us in the real cosmos) is just irrelevant, much less
                the rest.

                But the more 'concrete' tales of the "revealed" god, such as the 6 day
                creation, talking serpent, burning bush, flood and ark, yadda yadda, virgin birth,
                walking on water, resurrection, fiery return, etc., are just silly. I see no
                reason to consider these thing seriously.

                Wil

                A transcendent God has pretty much been a failed notion in philosophy since
                Spinoza. Hegel demonstrated


                In a message dated 9/29/06 7:54:28 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@... wrote:
                > >
                > > Yeah, I never understood what is so existential in theistic
                > existentialism. If there is a god that interferes with the world,
                > where is the freedom? If there is a god that does not, then as Conan
                > remarked, "To Hell with you."
                > >
                > > If your life now is supposedly less real than your 'life' after
                > you are dead (itself a preposterous idea!), then what is so
                > existential about this 'fake' life?
                > >
                > > But I find the whole subject of God to be beyond my
                > understanding, anyway.
                > >
                > > Wil
                >
                > Well, that's honest enough. The god in your first paragraph is like
                > some item of human manufacture, unbelievable and irrelevant. A
                > brief account of transcendent Godhood would be that which makes
                > possible in the first place both the concretion of existence and the
                > abstraction of essence, not to mention any discussion we may have
                > about these ideas, in cyberspace.
                >
                > Louise
                >
                >
                >



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • louise
                [Wil] ... But the more concrete tales of the revealed god, such as the 6 day creation, talking serpent, burning bush, flood and ark, yadda yadda, virgin
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 29, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  [Wil]
                  ... But the more 'concrete' tales of the "revealed" god, such as the
                  6 day creation, talking serpent, burning bush, flood and ark, yadda
                  yadda, virgin birth, walking on water, resurrection, fiery return,
                  etc., are just silly.

                  Louise
                  If you were to set these in modern scientific setting, true. That
                  is hardly the context. You may simply find quite uninteresting any
                  wandering of language into the domain of mythopoeia.

                  [Wil]
                  I see no reason to consider these thing seriously.
                  A transcendent God has pretty much been a failed notion in
                  philosophy since Spinoza. Hegel demonstrated

                  Louise
                  Did he?? Anyway, Kierkegaard explicitly states in his journals that
                  his aim is to abolish Christianity in order to bring men and women
                  to a living sense of God. The perception of God is indeed more or
                  less dead, in the West, at any rate. Passions do not run high. No
                  wonder we are so apt to go to war or invite foreigners to walk all
                  over our societies. It amazes me how courteous and gracious many of
                  these guests remain, perceiving the general madness. Your life in
                  the Deep South of USA probably leaves you with quite a different way
                  of thinking from my somewhat besieged and belligerent European
                  sensibility, coarsened by bewilderment.
                • eupraxis@aol.com
                  Yes, my experiences here have certainly steeled my impatience with, let us call it, Christian activism, and the fundamentalism that undergirds it. But even as
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 29, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes, my experiences here have certainly steeled my impatience with, let us call it, Christian activism, and the fundamentalism that undergirds it. But even as a kid in NY, I just never for a moment bought any of it. The vision of heaven and hell, and the rest of it, would fill me with a nausea and make my head swim. If one really believes this, I thought, what kind of universe would one have to accept along with it? Magic either is or isn't.

                    The more reflective or "mystical" approaches to this either 1) beg the question and just swoon as directed, or 2) have in mind a notion of god that is very far removed from Jesus and family. The latter god brings us back to the "philosophers'" god. Hence back to Spinoza, Schelling, Hegel, Feuerbach, etc.

                    The Death of God (a la Nietzsche) doesn't mean, necessarily at least, that the fervor for god is gone or that people have doctrinal problems with the notion. Rather Nietzsche meant to remind us that our basic worldview is no longer one that DEPENDS exclusively on the supernatural as such. Even the most devout holy-roller still knows that light is photonic, that thunder is a natural event, that the basis for his/her daily activities is mundane. In other words, anyone who would revert to the simpler, holier worldview would be considered as holding irrational ideas. No?

                    Now, I do have respect for the deep myth approach to the subject, a la Frazier (Golden Bough), Graves (White Goddess), etc. But THAT is a very different thing altogether again. Subjectivity as discursively embodied, etc.

                    Finally, the incomplete sentence with "Hegel" was due to my hitting the enter button ("send") by mistake.

                    Wil



                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: hecubatoher@...
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 9:01 AM
                    Subject: [existlist] Re: A self evident system

                    [Wil]
                    ... But the more 'concrete' tales of the "revealed" god, such as the
                    6 day creation, talking serpent, burning bush, flood and ark, yadda
                    yadda, virgin birth, walking on water, resurrection, fiery return,
                    etc., are just silly.

                    Louise
                    If you were to set these in modern scientific setting, true. That
                    is hardly the context. You may simply find quite uninteresting any
                    wandering of language into the domain of mythopoeia.

                    [Wil]
                    I see no reason to consider these thing seriously.
                    A transcendent God has pretty much been a failed notion in
                    philosophy since Spinoza. Hegel demonstrated

                    Louise
                    Did he?? Anyway, Kierkegaard explicitly states in his journals that
                    his aim is to abolish Christianity in order to bring men and women
                    to a living sense of God. The perception of God is indeed more or
                    less dead, in the West, at any rate. Passions do not run high. No
                    wonder we are so apt to go to war or invite foreigners to walk all
                    over our societies. It amazes me how courteous and gracious many of
                    these guests remain, perceiving the general madness. Your life in
                    the Deep South of USA probably leaves you with quite a different way
                    of thinking from my somewhat besieged and belligerent European
                    sensibility, coarsened by bewilderment.


                    ________________________________________________________________________
                    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]
                  • Susan Schnelbach
                    Wil - It sounds like you d appreciate this quote. I don t know if you are a fan of the new Battlestar Galactica series on SciFi, but here is a quote from a
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 30, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Wil -

                      It sounds like you'd appreciate this quote. I don't know if you are a
                      fan of the new Battlestar Galactica series on SciFi, but here is a
                      quote from a Cylon that stuck in my mind and I included on my Web
                      site's quote wall...

                      "There is no God. Supernatural divinities are the primitives'
                      explanation for why the sun goes down at night."

                      Susan

                      On Sep 29, 2006, at 8:13 AM, eupraxis@... wrote:

                      > Louise,
                      >
                      > I say this with no anger or ill will.
                      >
                      > "The god in your first paragraph is like some item of human
                      > manufacture,
                      > unbelievable and irrelevant"
                      >
                      > Yes, that is very true. As far as a "personal" god goes (that is,
                      > one that
                      > you can pray to, etc.), it is "of human manufacture, unbelievable
                      > and irrelevant
                      > ." A completely transcendent god (that is, one you cannot pray to,
                      > etc., and
                      > which is not residing with us in the real cosmos) is just
                      > irrelevant, much less
                      > the rest.
                      >
                      > But the more 'concrete' tales of the "revealed" god, such as the 6 day
                      > creation, talking serpent, burning bush, flood and ark, yadda
                      > yadda, virgin birth,
                      > walking on water, resurrection, fiery return, etc., are just silly.
                      > I see no
                      > reason to consider these thing seriously.
                      >
                      > Wil
                      >
                      > A transcendent God has pretty much been a failed notion in
                      > philosophy since
                      > Spinoza. Hegel demonstrated
                      >
                      > In a message dated 9/29/06 7:54:28 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                      >
                      > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@... wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Yeah, I never understood what is so existential in theistic
                      > > existentialism. If there is a god that interferes with the world,
                      > > where is the freedom? If there is a god that does not, then as Conan
                      > > remarked, "To Hell with you."
                      > > >
                      > > > If your life now is supposedly less real than your 'life' after
                      > > you are dead (itself a preposterous idea!), then what is so
                      > > existential about this 'fake' life?
                      > > >
                      > > > But I find the whole subject of God to be beyond my
                      > > understanding, anyway.
                      > > >
                      > > > Wil
                      > >
                      > > Well, that's honest enough. The god in your first paragraph is like
                      > > some item of human manufacture, unbelievable and irrelevant. A
                      > > brief account of transcendent Godhood would be that which makes
                      > > possible in the first place both the concretion of existence and the
                      > > abstraction of essence, not to mention any discussion we may have
                      > > about these ideas, in cyberspace.
                      > >
                      > > Louise
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • louise
                      A completely transcendent god (that is, one you cannot pray to, etc., and which is not residing with us in the real cosmos) is just irrelevant, much less the
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 30, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        " A completely transcendent god (that is, one you cannot pray to,
                        etc., and which is not residing with us in the real cosmos) is just
                        irrelevant, much less the rest." Wil

                        No, it would not be correct to say that one cannot pray to a
                        completely transcendent god, though in the terms of a fairly standard
                        Protestant theology, this would be written as 'God', and command the
                        definite article. Whether the internet provides a suitable venue for
                        such discussion I am unsure. Am still working out the details of my
                        own beliefs, in relation to the total experiences of a life lived and
                        continuing.

                        Louise
                      • eupraxis@aol.com
                        Blunt, but true. WS ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Message 11 of 11 , Sep 30, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Blunt, but true.

                          WS

                          In a message dated 9/30/06 11:25:19 AM, susan@... writes:


                          > "There is no God. Supernatural divinities are the primitives'
                          > explanation for why the sun goes down at night."
                          >
                          > Susan
                          >
                          >
                          >



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