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

Never

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Jay, I may argue about how to define my Britishness, but, you know, we don t do submission. There are contexts where obedience is needful, indeed where it
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Jay,

      I may argue about how to define my Britishness, but, you know, we
      don't do submission. There are contexts where obedience is needful,
      indeed where it constitutes the very essence of duty. Existentialism
      is not cut adrift from the most ancient and traditional of concepts,
      within moral philosophy or any other branch of the humanities. Virtue
      is piety. Through the course of a lifetime, I move closer to
      tolerance and appreciation of Vergil's "Aeneid". Eventually, in the
      course of things, enjoyment arrives. So they say. Well, Aristotle at
      least reckoned old age the best time of life.

      Louise
    • James Johnson
      Louise, ... emotions to some preceived threat. That s a complement I wish onto myself to have such a reflex. Standing up to a threat to yourself. ... needs and
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Louise,
        >
        > I want to clarify my use of the word submission. I admire your defending
        emotions to some preceived threat. That's a complement I wish onto myself to have such a
        reflex. Standing up to a threat to yourself.
        > Nowhere did I say or imply you are
        > submissive to anything. I ask a lot of questions and
        > gave jugdments/opinions about your ideas of how you see
        > Existentialism being different enough not to get
        > sucked into being authoritarin/mean.
        > I wrote Submission as the opposite of your
        > authoritarian, that was the really only reason I put
        > it there. Though it adds to the common tendency that
        > we all have in desiring to connect to
        > some idea/concept or someone bigger/stronger
        > than ourselves. Something different or unique that
        > would always do the right and kind act. We all want
        > to submit to that desire or dream. I assume existentialist are humans with all the same
        needs and desires expressing them in arrogant ways or in collaborate ways with
        others.Existentialism is no different than any other philosophy or religion in
        > wanting to promote that they are a step above the rest ( special ).
        > Though from what I have observed extentialists ( or buddhist ) may even push it to an
        even higher level of saying that they believe in an existential outlook or way of looking at
        things but not wanting to be defined or even called the thing they promote.
        I have a very high standard for words written down because as I have said in the
        past, written or the spoken words only puts you in the direction of intent they do not
        enable you to actually see the acts or deeds of the writer, can they 'walk the talk'.
        I don't have trust in the general words people use since I have heard people use
        the same words but mean it or demonstrate in deeds/actions totally differently.This is why
        I can get irritated/frustrated with 'intellectual' ( The Philosophic, Psychologic :The Mind )
        writers and emotional base writers ( poets, religious :The Heart ) since everthing is
        unbalanced to the side of subjectivism. Both, like many, will not or can not explain what
        they meant in real life examples of how they express their words in actions or deeds.
        c Subjectivism ( ones inner Self thoughts/feelings ) has no value/purpose/
        meaning without a relationship/connection to Objectivism ( external event or common
        experience). So often there is no attempt to balance ones words/terms with a shared
        objective/concrete point of reference other than words on words. deeds. THATS the most
        crucial ability to have is the ability to articulate your words into experiential terms. If you
        can't do that, in my opinion,your words are worthless and only good to hide behind.
        I am used to a more balance expression/definition as is done in research
        ( Medical ) where you must take in account ( value) the subjective ( human interpretational
        bias) with your objective ( physiologic responses ) concrete data to attempt to understand
        or formulate a view of reality.

        Jay
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > Jay,
        >
        > I may argue about how to define my Britishness, but, you know, we
        > don't do submission. There are contexts where obedience is needful,
        > indeed where it constitutes the very essence of duty. Existentialism
        > is not cut adrift from the most ancient and traditional of concepts,
        > within moral philosophy or any other branch of the humanities. Virtue
        > is piety. Through the course of a lifetime, I move closer to
        > tolerance and appreciation of Vergil's "Aeneid". Eventually, in the
        > course of things, enjoyment arrives. So they say. Well, Aristotle at
        > least reckoned old age the best time of life.
        >
        > Louise
        >
      • louise
        ... wrote: Louise, I want to clarify my use of the word submission. I admire your defending emotions to some preceived threat. That s a complement I wish onto
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "James Johnson" <netjaysd@...>
          wrote:

          Louise,

          I want to clarify my use of the word submission. I admire your
          defending emotions to some preceived threat. That's a complement I
          wish onto myself to have such a reflex. Standing up to a threat to
          yourself.
          Nowhere did I say or imply you are submissive to anything.

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

          Jay,

          I don't know you, and was not, in my statement about submission,
          making an attribution in your direction. Valuing salt as I do, a
          little astringency may be in place. Your use of the plural pronoun
          sounds like a threat, though not to me. I do not have to explain
          that, though I might try if you ask me nicely. My psychiatrists
          have been humane people, sometimes wise and helpful. The last thing
          I possibly need at this list is psycho-analysis or advice. Life is
          life, the internet provides cyberspace. Mystical enough for those
          as likes it. Sorry that my prose is a little flat, probably the
          intrinsic limitations of physics, reference anatomy. You won't by
          your own standards like the indirectness and apparent impersonality
          of this reply. There are reasons for my approach, believe it or
          not. Experience reveals.

          Louise
        • James Johnson
          Louise, Thanks for continued interaction. I know we can become clear on this. Can we review the subjective/objective data about me using the word Submission in
          Message 4 of 16 , Nov 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Louise,

            Thanks for continued interaction. I know we can become clear on this. Can we
            review the subjective/objective data about me using the word Submission in the Subject
            Title ?
            My first written words to your discuusion about that it's hard for you to see an
            Existentialist being Authoritarin were questions about how do you see existentialist,
            philosophers and I gave my opinions about the words of existentialists, philosophers,
            some of my feelings about dogma writings of the bible or philosophers in general. I ended
            with saying that I hope that you're not that kind of extentialist that I doesn't care about
            explaining herself to people lesser than them ( Me, I feel threaten with not understanding
            someone else ).
            You then wrote that you don't do submission and that strong ego existentialist can
            be balanced. I then wroteand said I never said submission about you, it was about the
            tendency that all of us do ( ME TOO ). Though asking you to clarify where and how did you
            see submission in my writings.
            After I wrote admiring your quick emotional ( thats good ) response to my
            threatening word , submission, to you which I never used in a sentence about you. I said I
            admire your 'Standing up " ( thats good ). Side note, I wish to be able to do what Bill did as
            a ~ 17yr old with his logic teacher, that's clarity in one self.
            Now you write,
            'I don't know you, and was not, in my statement about submission,
            making an attribution in your direction.' I don't understand this sentence since you
            said I was the one who used the word submission. What do you mean ? I'm also confused
            about your sentence 'Your ( MY ) use of the plural pronoun sounds like a threat,
            though not to me' then to who is threatened, I usually don't make threats to
            myself? You mentioned disliking me to 'psycho analysis or get advice'. I never gave you
            advice but when someone gets me a strong opinion I can feel like they are giving me
            advice and that they are making a statement about my psychological makeup which
            doesn't make me feel good at all. Maybe that's what happen with you ? It was not my
            intent/objective in the least to do that because I feel we all have common thoughts and
            feelings ( 'evil'/'good') with a lot with hopes/dreams and needs/desires. As I explained in
            my Subject Title 'Are not all words threatening ( + - ) to everyone if you don't
            understand or agree ? Do you agree,that my and I know other peoples experience.
            Louise, I hope you can hear my sincerity that I not here to threaten you and
            cause you pain since I have a very BIG gentle heart. Sometimes my wife thinks I'm her
            enemy and out to hurt or take something away from her but to do that would hurt or take
            something from myself there would be no benefit for me. If I don't put the effort or
            attempt to relate/connect/understand you I have one less person who can make my life
            feel more complete or connected and that's important to me. I hope thats important to you
            because in my ' judgment for people who don't have a need to be connected to different
            kinds of others are either fearful of others knowing their weaknesses ( keeping a big
            facade of strenght of self interdependence it not fitting their self image ) or they have
            been modeled the connecting behavior.
            To be honest I'm one of these people now attempting to demonstrate more
            understand to myself that I just like everyone else with big personal fears ( It's OK to make
            mistakes, to need things explained to myself and even have evil thought, lust, etc ).
            But I need people like you ( Can' be an island unto myself ) and you need
            people ( hopefully ME ) also to understand since knowledge is gained/promoted ( no one
            originated complete understanding not Jesus or some 'Great Mind' philosophers) and
            experienced by sharing/giving ( SELFISH reasons ) it not by with holding it. One doesn't
            just waking up one morning and understand, but we have the capacity to know and
            understand truth. I disagree with C.S Wyatt here. But I do want to be true to myself so if I
            don't understand something that is written or communicated ( isn't congruent with my
            brain ) I want to stand up also like you. Because I can be threatened by words ( thoughts
            and feelings ) ,also, that make me seen as wrong,stupid and especially unkind.
            I never said that your prose were flat. The reason I don't like them has nothing to
            do with the ' intrinsic limitattion of physics, reference anatomy ', and any problems I have
            with you, have nothing to do with your 'indirectness and the impersonality of this reply'.
            It's just that when I read something that I feel is written in a too complex way or no
            attempt to elaborate either by accident or on purpose that doesn't need to be hided.
            To me poetry is totally like that, I feel it's often a code for only a selective
            few who may understand or may not understand but will just rave about how good it is,
            like a joke they may not understand either but are too embrassed to admit that they don't
            understand and laugh anyway. But the only difference about poetry is the author may be
            dead or may really disclose or not what it means for various reasons/gains. Because Poetry
            is so subjective that means only I who writes it really knows what it means and if I want to
            share or let you into my club of knowing only I can give the key. And even after you give
            me the key and it doesn't still make sense you can fault me for anything from being stupid
            or just don't have the right mind.
            All this can that makes me very mad ( unlike medical science that mixes
            the subjective and the objective elements together ) because I feel less than equal with
            others and I already feel inferior ( just like most humans can easily feel who want to be on
            similar pages ).
            I think the world is so full of words that many people really don't want
            people to understand because that would mean that these people could be equal and a lot
            of these people like feeling on top. As I have siad before there are great advantages to not
            defining yourself, keep behind your cloak. Like Wil (good guy ), and others ( C.SW) , said
            that some of of these concepts are for specialist or philosophers. In my profession or
            speciality ( Intensive care medicine ) I explained to what level my patients or collegues are
            at ( their interest and level of knowledge determines how I explain ) and no way would I
            dumb it down to at level of nothing by saying that ' WELL,THIS TO COMPLEX FOR YOU so
            google it '. I talk as simply as possible and wait for the other to talk and I will come up to a
            new established level. I may have misunderstood Wil ( I may have become
            threatened ).........

            Thanks for your time and attention,

            Jay
            >
            > Louise,
            >
            > I want to clarify my use of the word submission. I admire your
            > defending emotions to some preceived threat. That's a complement I
            > wish onto myself to have such a reflex. Standing up to a threat to
            > yourself.
            > Nowhere did I say or imply you are submissive to anything.
            >
            > ----------------------------------
            >
            > Jay,
            >
            > I don't know you, and was not, in my statement about submission,
            > making an attribution in your direction. Valuing salt as I do, a
            > little astringency may be in place. Your use of the plural pronoun
            > sounds like a threat, though not to me. I do not have to explain
            > that, though I might try if you ask me nicely. My psychiatrists
            > have been humane people, sometimes wise and helpful. The last thing
            > I possibly need at this list is psycho-analysis or advice. Life is
            > life, the internet provides cyberspace. Mystical enough for those
            > as likes it. Sorry that my prose is a little flat, probably the
            > intrinsic limitations of physics, reference anatomy. You won't by
            > your own standards like the indirectness and apparent impersonality
            > of this reply. There are reasons for my approach, believe it or
            > not. Experience reveals.
            >
            > Louise
            >
          • eupraxis@aol.com
            Hello Jay, Sorry, but I do not recall the original question. What was it again? Wil ... From: netjaysd@yahoo.com To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 2 Nov
            Message 5 of 16 , Nov 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Jay,

              Sorry, but I do not recall the original question. What was it again?

              Wil

              -----Original Message-----
              From: netjaysd@...
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 2:11 PM
              Subject: [existlist] Are not all words threatening ( + - ) to everyone if you don't understand/agree?


              Louise,

              Thanks for continued interaction. I know we can become clear on this. Can we
              review the subjective/objective data about me using the word Submission in the Subject
              Title ?
              My first written words to your discuusion about that it's hard for you to see an
              Existentialist being Authoritarin were questions about how do you see existentialist,
              philosophers and I gave my opinions about the words of existentialists, philosophers,
              some of my feelings about dogma writings of the bible or philosophers in general. I ended
              with saying that I hope that you're not that kind of extentialist that I doesn't care about
              explaining herself to people lesser than them ( Me, I feel threaten with not understanding
              someone else ).
              You then wrote that you don't do submission and that strong ego existentialist can
              be balanced. I then wroteand said I never said submission about you, it was about the
              tendency that all of us do ( ME TOO ). Though asking you to clarify where and how did you
              see submission in my writings.
              After I wrote admiring your quick emotional ( thats good ) response to my
              threatening word , submission, to you which I never used in a sentence about you. I said I
              admire your 'Standing up " ( thats good ). Side note, I wish to be able to do what Bill did as
              a ~ 17yr old with his logic teacher, that's clarity in one self.
              Now you write,
              'I don't know you, and was not, in my statement about submission,
              making an attribution in your direction.' I don't understand this sentence since you
              said I was the one who used the word submission. What do you mean ? I'm also confused
              about your sentence 'Your ( MY ) use of the plural pronoun sounds like a threat,
              though not to me' then to who is threatened, I usually don't make threats to
              myself? You mentioned disliking me to 'psycho analysis or get advice'. I never gave you
              advice but when someone gets me a strong opinion I can feel like they are giving me
              advice and that they are making a statement about my psychological makeup which
              doesn't make me feel good at all. Maybe that's what happen with you ? It was not my
              intent/objective in the least to do that because I feel we all have common thoughts and
              feelings ( 'evil'/'good') with a lot with hopes/dreams and needs/desires. As I explained in
              my Subject Title 'Are not all words threatening ( + - ) to everyone if you don't
              understand or agree ? Do you agree,that my and I know other peoples experience.
              Louise, I hope you can hear my sincerity that I not here to threaten you and
              cause you pain since I have a very BIG gentle heart. Sometimes my wife thinks I'm her
              enemy and out to hurt or take something away from her but to do that would hurt or take
              something from myself there would be no benefit for me. If I don't put the effort or
              attempt to relate/connect/understand you I have one less person who can make my life
              feel more complete or connected and that's important to me. I hope thats important to you
              because in my ' judgment for people who don't have a need to be connected to different
              kinds of others are either fearful of others knowing their weaknesses ( keeping a big
              facade of strenght of self interdependence it not fitting their self image ) or they have
              been modeled the connecting behavior.
              To be honest I'm one of these people now attempting to demonstrate more
              understand to myself that I just like everyone else with big personal fears ( It's OK to make
              mistakes, to need things explained to myself and even have evil thought, lust, etc ).
              But I need people like you ( Can' be an island unto myself ) and you need
              people ( hopefully ME ) also to understand since knowledge is gained/promoted ( no one
              originated complete understanding not Jesus or some 'Great Mind' philosophers) and
              experienced by sharing/giving ( SELFISH reasons ) it not by with holding it. One doesn't
              just waking up one morning and understand, but we have the capacity to know and
              understand truth. I disagree with C.S Wyatt here. But I do want to be true to myself so if I
              don't understand something that is written or communicated ( isn't congruent with my
              brain ) I want to stand up also like you. Because I can be threatened by words ( thoughts
              and feelings ) ,also, that make me seen as wrong,stupid and especially unkind.
              I never said that your prose were flat. The reason I don't like them has nothing to
              do with the ' intrinsic limitattion of physics, reference anatomy ', and any problems I have
              with you, have nothing to do with your 'indirectness and the impersonality of this reply'.
              It's just that when I read something that I feel is written in a too complex way or no
              attempt to elaborate either by accident or on purpose that doesn't need to be hided.
              To me poetry is totally like that, I feel it's often a code for only a selective
              few who may understand or may not understand but will just rave about how good it is,
              like a joke they may not understand either but are too embrassed to admit that they don't
              understand and laugh anyway. But the only difference about poetry is the author may be
              dead or may really disclose or not what it means for various reasons/gains. Because Poetry
              is so subjective that means only I who writes it really knows what it means and if I want to
              share or let you into my club of knowing only I can give the key. And even after you give
              me the key and it doesn't still make sense you can fault me for anything from being stupid
              or just don't have the right mind.
              All this can that makes me very mad ( unlike medical science that mixes
              the subjective and the objective elements together ) because I feel less than equal with
              others and I already feel inferior ( just like most humans can easily feel who want to be on
              similar pages ).
              I think the world is so full of words that many people really don't want
              people to understand because that would mean that these people could be equal and a lot
              of these people like feeling on top. As I have siad before there are great advantages to not
              defining yourself, keep behind your cloak. Like Wil (good guy ), and others ( C.SW) , said
              that some of of these concepts are for specialist or philosophers. In my profession or
              speciality ( Intensive care medicine ) I explained to what level my patients or collegues are
              at ( their interest and level of knowledge determines how I explain ) and no way would I
              dumb it down to at level of nothing by saying that ' WELL,THIS TO COMPLEX FOR YOU so
              google it '. I talk as simply as possible and wait for the other to talk and I will come up to a
              new established level. I may have misunderstood Wil ( I may have become
              threatened ).........

              Thanks for your time and attention,

              Jay
              >
              > Louise,
              >
              > I want to clarify my use of the word submission. I admire your
              > defending emotions to some preceived threat. That's a complement I
              > wish onto myself to have such a reflex. Standing up to a threat to
              > yourself.
              > Nowhere did I say or imply you are submissive to anything.
              >
              > ----------------------------------
              >
              > Jay,
              >
              > I don't know you, and was not, in my statement about submission,
              > making an attribution in your direction. Valuing salt as I do, a
              > little astringency may be in place. Your use of the plural pronoun
              > sounds like a threat, though not to me. I do not have to explain
              > that, though I might try if you ask me nicely. My psychiatrists
              > have been humane people, sometimes wise and helpful. The last thing
              > I possibly need at this list is psycho-analysis or advice. Life is
              > life, the internet provides cyberspace. Mystical enough for those
              > as likes it. Sorry that my prose is a little flat, probably the
              > intrinsic limitations of physics, reference anatomy. You won't by
              > your own standards like the indirectness and apparent impersonality
              > of this reply. There are reasons for my approach, believe it or
              > not. Experience reveals.
              >
              > 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]
            • James Johnson
              Wil, The original question to Louise was Authoritarianism is incompatible with Extentialism, how or why not ? Jay ... understand/agree? ... ended ...
              Message 6 of 16 , Nov 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Wil,

                The original question to Louise was 'Authoritarianism is incompatible with
                Extentialism, how or why not ?'
                Jay

                >
                > Hello Jay,
                >
                > Sorry, but I do not recall the original question. What was it again?
                >
                > Wil
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: netjaysd@...
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 2:11 PM
                > Subject: [existlist] Are not all words threatening ( + - ) to everyone if you don't
                understand/agree?
                >
                >
                > Louise,
                >
                > Thanks for continued interaction. I know we can become clear on this. Can we
                > review the subjective/objective data about me using the word Submission in the Subject
                > Title ?
                > My first written words to your discuusion about that it's hard for you to see an
                > Existentialist being Authoritarin were questions about how do you see existentialist,
                > philosophers and I gave my opinions about the words of existentialists, philosophers,
                > some of my feelings about dogma writings of the bible or philosophers in general. I
                ended
                > with saying that I hope that you're not that kind of extentialist that I doesn't care about
                > explaining herself to people lesser than them ( Me, I feel threaten with not
                understanding
                > someone else ).
                > You then wrote that you don't do submission and that strong ego existentialist can
                > be balanced. I then wroteand said I never said submission about you, it was about the
                > tendency that all of us do ( ME TOO ). Though asking you to clarify where and how did
                you
                > see submission in my writings.
                > After I wrote admiring your quick emotional ( thats good ) response to my
                > threatening word , submission, to you which I never used in a sentence about you. I
                said I
                > admire your 'Standing up " ( thats good ). Side note, I wish to be able to do what Bill did
                as
                > a ~ 17yr old with his logic teacher, that's clarity in one self.
                > Now you write,
                > 'I don't know you, and was not, in my statement about submission,
                > making an attribution in your direction.' I don't understand this sentence since you
                > said I was the one who used the word submission. What do you mean ? I'm also
                confused
                > about your sentence 'Your ( MY ) use of the plural pronoun sounds like a threat,
                > though not to me' then to who is threatened, I usually don't make threats to
                > myself? You mentioned disliking me to 'psycho analysis or get advice'. I never gave you
                > advice but when someone gets me a strong opinion I can feel like they are giving me
                > advice and that they are making a statement about my psychological makeup which
                > doesn't make me feel good at all. Maybe that's what happen with you ? It was not my
                > intent/objective in the least to do that because I feel we all have common thoughts and
                > feelings ( 'evil'/'good') with a lot with hopes/dreams and needs/desires. As I explained
                in
                > my Subject Title 'Are not all words threatening ( + - ) to everyone if you don't
                > understand or agree ? Do you agree,that my and I know other peoples experience.
                > Louise, I hope you can hear my sincerity that I not here to threaten you and
                > cause you pain since I have a very BIG gentle heart. Sometimes my wife thinks I'm her
                > enemy and out to hurt or take something away from her but to do that would hurt or
                take
                > something from myself there would be no benefit for me. If I don't put the effort or
                > attempt to relate/connect/understand you I have one less person who can make my life
                > feel more complete or connected and that's important to me. I hope thats important to
                you
                > because in my ' judgment for people who don't have a need to be connected to
                different
                > kinds of others are either fearful of others knowing their weaknesses ( keeping a big
                > facade of strenght of self interdependence it not fitting their self image ) or they have
                > been modeled the connecting behavior.
                > To be honest I'm one of these people now attempting to demonstrate more
                > understand to myself that I just like everyone else with big personal fears ( It's OK to
                make
                > mistakes, to need things explained to myself and even have evil thought, lust, etc ).
                > But I need people like you ( Can' be an island unto myself ) and you need
                > people ( hopefully ME ) also to understand since knowledge is gained/promoted ( no
                one
                > originated complete understanding not Jesus or some 'Great Mind' philosophers) and
                > experienced by sharing/giving ( SELFISH reasons ) it not by with holding it. One doesn't
                > just waking up one morning and understand, but we have the capacity to know and
                > understand truth. I disagree with C.S Wyatt here. But I do want to be true to myself so if
                I
                > don't understand something that is written or communicated ( isn't congruent with my
                > brain ) I want to stand up also like you. Because I can be threatened by words
                ( thoughts
                > and feelings ) ,also, that make me seen as wrong,stupid and especially unkind.
                > I never said that your prose were flat. The reason I don't like them has nothing to
                > do with the ' intrinsic limitattion of physics, reference anatomy ', and any problems I
                have
                > with you, have nothing to do with your 'indirectness and the impersonality of this reply'.
                > It's just that when I read something that I feel is written in a too complex way or no
                > attempt to elaborate either by accident or on purpose that doesn't need to be hided.
                > To me poetry is totally like that, I feel it's often a code for only a selective
                > few who may understand or may not understand but will just rave about how good it is,
                > like a joke they may not understand either but are too embrassed to admit that they
                don't
                > understand and laugh anyway. But the only difference about poetry is the author may
                be
                > dead or may really disclose or not what it means for various reasons/gains. Because
                Poetry
                > is so subjective that means only I who writes it really knows what it means and if I want
                to
                > share or let you into my club of knowing only I can give the key. And even after you
                give
                > me the key and it doesn't still make sense you can fault me for anything from being
                stupid
                > or just don't have the right mind.
                > All this can that makes me very mad ( unlike medical science that mixes
                > the subjective and the objective elements together ) because I feel less than equal with
                > others and I already feel inferior ( just like most humans can easily feel who want to be
                on
                > similar pages ).
                > I think the world is so full of words that many people really don't want
                > people to understand because that would mean that these people could be equal and a
                lot
                > of these people like feeling on top. As I have siad before there are great advantages to
                not
                > defining yourself, keep behind your cloak. Like Wil (good guy ), and others ( C.SW) , said
                > that some of of these concepts are for specialist or philosophers. In my profession or
                > speciality ( Intensive care medicine ) I explained to what level my patients or collegues
                are
                > at ( their interest and level of knowledge determines how I explain ) and no way would I
                > dumb it down to at level of nothing by saying that ' WELL,THIS TO COMPLEX FOR YOU
                so
                > google it '. I talk as simply as possible and wait for the other to talk and I will come up
                to a
                > new established level. I may have misunderstood Wil ( I may have become
                > threatened ).........
                >
                > Thanks for your time and attention,
                >
                > Jay
                > >
                > > Louise,
                > >
                > > I want to clarify my use of the word submission. I admire your
                > > defending emotions to some preceived threat. That's a complement I
                > > wish onto myself to have such a reflex. Standing up to a threat to
                > > yourself.
                > > Nowhere did I say or imply you are submissive to anything.
                > >
                > > ----------------------------------
                > >
                > > Jay,
                > >
                > > I don't know you, and was not, in my statement about submission,
                > > making an attribution in your direction. Valuing salt as I do, a
                > > little astringency may be in place. Your use of the plural pronoun
                > > sounds like a threat, though not to me. I do not have to explain
                > > that, though I might try if you ask me nicely. My psychiatrists
                > > have been humane people, sometimes wise and helpful. The last thing
                > > I possibly need at this list is psycho-analysis or advice. Life is
                > > life, the internet provides cyberspace. Mystical enough for those
                > > as likes it. Sorry that my prose is a little flat, probably the
                > > intrinsic limitations of physics, reference anatomy. You won't by
                > > your own standards like the indirectness and apparent impersonality
                > > of this reply. There are reasons for my approach, believe it or
                > > not. Experience reveals.
                > >
                > > 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]
                >
              • eupraxis@aol.com
                Jay, Existentialism, in its academic and literary formulations (which is always where I am coming from, it seems), was a public discourse, nevertheless. By
                Message 7 of 16 , Nov 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jay,

                  Existentialism, in its 'academic' and literary formulations (which is always
                  where I am coming from, it seems), was a public discourse, nevertheless. By
                  public I mean one that sought to open philosophical discussion to
                  humanity-at-large. (This was especially true in the case of Sartre.) As such, it was
                  inherently a liberal-humanist discourse, a leftist one, that had at its base the
                  concept of radical freedom. Freedom, taken logically beyond just someone's freedom
                  to everyone's freedom, and to the liberation of those in need of it, would of
                  course be anathematic to authoritarianism.

                  That said, if one were an authoritarian, one would oneself have existential
                  issues, so I guess one could write a limited kind of existentialism for
                  sadists, bullies, dictators and the like -- but, outside of writing from the
                  Nuremburg trials, I haven't seen anything like that as yet.

                  Wil


                  In a message dated 11/3/06 12:24:09 AM, netjaysd@... writes:


                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Wil,
                  >
                  > The original question to Louise was 'Authoritarianism is incompatible with
                  > Extentialism, how or why not ?'
                  > Jay
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                  ... i don t see this next step to everyone else s freedom covered by existentialism within my own very limited theoretical reading or in much of the practice
                  Message 8 of 16 , Nov 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Wil:

                    > Freedom, taken logically beyond just someone's freedom to everyone's
                    > freedom, and to the liberation of those in need of it, would of course
                    > be anathematic to authoritarianism.

                    i don't see this next step to everyone else's freedom covered by
                    existentialism within my own very limited theoretical reading or in much
                    of the practice within this list. i do see it covered in ethical systems
                    that take into account both the laws of nature and human ability to
                    reflect in addition to the experience of loving care, which one gets from
                    close others, especially in infancy, but also importantly in adolescence
                    and throughout life.

                    > That said, if one were an authoritarian, one would oneself have existential
                    > issues, so I guess one could write a limited kind of existentialism for
                    > sadists, bullies, dictators and the like -- but, outside of writing from the
                    > Nuremburg trials, I haven't seen anything like that as yet.

                    i don't see the usefulness of, for instance, labeling as "totalitarian"
                    Fibonacci-patterned decisions, but maybe i'm misreading what you are
                    trying to say.

                    aija
                  • eupraxis@aol.com
                    If a philosophical position avows everyone s freedom, it couldn t then avow an authoritarian position (which presumably denies that freedom) and be consistent.
                    Message 9 of 16 , Nov 3, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If a philosophical position avows everyone's freedom, it couldn't then avow an authoritarian position (which presumably denies that freedom) and be consistent.

                      W

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: beldavsa@...
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 10:17 AM
                      Subject: Re: [existlist] Wil, 'The question'


                      Wil:

                      > Freedom, taken logically beyond just someone's freedom to everyone's
                      > freedom, and to the liberation of those in need of it, would of course
                      > be anathematic to authoritarianism.

                      i don't see this next step to everyone else's freedom covered by
                      existentialism within my own very limited theoretical reading or in much
                      of the practice within this list. i do see it covered in ethical systems
                      that take into account both the laws of nature and human ability to
                      reflect in addition to the experience of loving care, which one gets from
                      close others, especially in infancy, but also importantly in adolescence
                      and throughout life.

                      > That said, if one were an authoritarian, one would oneself have existential
                      > issues, so I guess one could write a limited kind of existentialism for
                      > sadists, bullies, dictators and the like -- but, outside of writing from the
                      > Nuremburg trials, I haven't seen anything like that as yet.

                      i don't see the usefulness of, for instance, labeling as "totalitarian"
                      Fibonacci-patterned decisions, but maybe i'm misreading what you are
                      trying to say.

                      aija

                      ________________________________________________________________________
                      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]
                    • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                      ... yup, that s the theory, that s the logic. but most people don t spend much time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds. the great social experiments sure
                      Message 10 of 16 , Nov 4, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > If a philosophical position avows everyone's freedom, it couldn't then
                        > avow an authoritarian position (which presumably denies that freedom)
                        > and be consistent. W

                        yup, that's the theory, that's the logic. but most people don't
                        spend much time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds.

                        the great social experiments sure didn't test out in practice the last
                        century but they killed millions, displaced millions more, tore up
                        communities that had ecologically developed somewhat more gently over
                        time, and left a significant number of the descendants of those who
                        survived poisoned in spirit as well as body.

                        never mind that today it is not considered ethical to experiment on human
                        beings without serious limits, such as involving informed consent. in the
                        last century, never mind the ethics, it didn't work out for practical
                        reasons either to say nothing of some fundamental logical flaws in those
                        perfect theories.

                        course that doesn't seem to stop a lot of those who have power to change.
                        nothing much does cause nature hasn't hit humanity with full force as yet.
                        for now some can play at gods accountable to no one.

                        aija
                      • Christopher Knoepfle
                        no ante. The Maestro s Astrology (available at lulu.com)- a 238pp demonstration of Plato s framework of divination, complete with a working example. ... From:
                        Message 11 of 16 , Nov 4, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          no ante.

                          The Maestro's Astrology (available at lulu.com)- a 238pp demonstration of Plato's framework of divination, complete with a working example.



                          ----- Original Message ----
                          From: Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2006 1:16:12 PM
                          Subject: Re: [existlist] Wil, 'The question'


                          > If a philosophical position avows everyone's freedom, it couldn't then
                          > avow an authoritarian position (which presumably denies that freedom)
                          > and be consistent. W

                          yup, that's the theory, that's the logic. but most people don't
                          spend much time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds.

                          the great social experiments sure didn't test out in practice the last
                          century but they killed millions, displaced millions more, tore up
                          communities that had ecologically developed somewhat more gently over
                          time, and left a significant number of the descendants of those who
                          survived poisoned in spirit as well as body.

                          never mind that today it is not considered ethical to experiment on human
                          beings without serious limits, such as involving informed consent. in the
                          last century, never mind the ethics, it didn't work out for practical
                          reasons either to say nothing of some fundamental logical flaws in those
                          perfect theories.

                          course that doesn't seem to stop a lot of those who have power to change.
                          nothing much does cause nature hasn't hit humanity with full force as yet.
                          for now some can play at gods accountable to no one.

                          aija



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • eupraxis@aol.com
                          aija, [yup, that s the theory, that s the logic. but most people don t spend much time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds.] Well, that would explain why it
                          Message 12 of 16 , Nov 4, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            aija,

                            [yup, that's the theory, that's the logic. but most people don't spend much
                            time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds.]

                            Well, that would explain why it I haven't gone on a date for some time. Gee,
                            who could have guessed that it was I who was playing hard to get all along?!?

                            [the great social experiments sure didn't test out in practice the last
                            century but they killed millions, displaced millions more, tore up
                            communities that had ecologically developed somewhat more gently over
                            time, and left a significant number of the descendants of those who
                            survived poisoned in spirit as well as body.]

                            Yes, and Bush says that he has read Camus, as well as a few "Shakespeares"
                            this Summer. Theory rarely makes a difference on the practices of despots. But
                            we, here, are not despots, so why should we think like them? The logic has to
                            count for something. What could the meaning of justice be if that were not so?

                            [never mind that today it is not considered ethical to experiment on human
                            beings without serious limits, such as involving informed consent. in the
                            last century, never mind the ethics, it didn't work out for practical
                            reasons either to say nothing of some fundamental logical flaws in those
                            perfect theories.

                            course that doesn't seem to stop a lot of those who have power to change.
                            nothing much does cause nature hasn't hit humanity with full force as yet.
                            for now some can play at gods accountable to no one.]

                            If I understand you correctly, you have a few nodding heads: Hegel said that
                            logic is faith (in his early criticism of Kant's assumption to the contrary);
                            Nietzsche said that it is "optimism". There is a true, but cold, insight in
                            what you say here. But what are WE to do?

                            Deconstruction was a failure precisely because it undercut the requirement,
                            even of its critics, to be intellectually ("logocentrically) honest. A bad
                            move, I think. Just because we know Cartesian expectations to have been
                            overweening shouldn't lead us to any resignation.

                            Wil


                            In a message dated 11/4/06 1:20:22 PM, beldavsa@... writes:


                            > yup, that's the theory, that's the logic. but most people don't
                            > spend much time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds.
                            >
                            > the great social experiments sure didn't test out in practice the last
                            > century but they killed millions, displaced millions more, tore up
                            > communities that had ecologically developed somewhat more gently over
                            > time, and left a significant number of the descendants of those who
                            > survived poisoned in spirit as well as body.
                            >
                            > never mind that today it is not considered ethical to experiment on human
                            > beings without serious limits, such as involving informed consent. in the
                            > last century, never mind the ethics, it didn't work out for practical
                            > reasons either to say nothing of some fundamental logical flaws in those
                            > perfect theories.
                            >
                            > course that doesn't seem to stop a lot of those who have power to change.
                            > nothing much does cause nature hasn't hit humanity with full force as yet.
                            > for now some can play at gods accountable to no one.
                            >
                            > aija
                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • James Johnson
                            Wil, How do you define radical freedom ? How would your individual ( subjective ) expression of freedom/choice not be anathematic to my individual ( subjective
                            Message 13 of 16 , Nov 9, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Wil,

                              How do you define radical freedom ? How would your individual ( subjective )
                              expression of freedom/choice not be anathematic to my individual ( subjective )
                              expression of my freedom/choice ? ?
                              With subjectivism being a center point in Extentialism, how and who decides what
                              subjective view is ' more' correct between us or a large group ? ? If you or me were in
                              conflict as to what is the right interpretation or what the correct actions to take, don't you
                              think the ' I am whatever I am ' would sprout authoriatarinism ? Because you did
                              mentioned that due to the encouragement of radical freedom in Existentialism,
                              authoritarianism would/should be anathematic to Existentialism. Do we have
                              responsiblities between us ?
                              > And again with subjectivity being the viewpoint of understanding reality, how
                              can ' academic formulations' be expressed as deeds/actions and not just words or
                              opinions ? And with the desire to open the philosophical discussion to the public at large
                              what is the practical value of 'academic' discussions to the public at large ? Academia
                              seems anathematic to generalities.

                              Jay
                              > Jay,
                              >
                              > Existentialism, in its 'academic' and literary formulations (which is always
                              > where I am coming from, it seems), was a public discourse, nevertheless. By
                              > public I mean one that sought to open philosophical discussion to
                              > humanity-at-large. (This was especially true in the case of Sartre.) As such, it was
                              > inherently a liberal-humanist discourse, a leftist one, that had at its base the
                              > concept of radical freedom. Freedom, taken logically beyond just someone's freedom
                              > to everyone's freedom, and to the liberation of those in need of it, would of
                              > course be anathematic to authoritarianism.
                              >
                              > That said, if one were an authoritarian, one would oneself have existential
                              > issues, so I guess one could write a limited kind of existentialism for
                              > sadists, bullies, dictators and the like -- but, outside of writing from the
                              > Nuremburg trials, I haven't seen anything like that as yet.
                              >
                              > Wil
                              >
                              >
                              > In a message dated 11/3/06 12:24:09 AM, netjaysd@... writes:
                              >
                              >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Wil,
                              > >
                              > > The original question to Louise was 'Authoritarianism is incompatible with
                              > > Extentialism, how or why not ?'
                              > > Jay
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                              [How would your individual (subjective) expression of freedom/choice not be anathematic to my individual (subjective) expression of my freedom/choice?] Maybe
                              Message 14 of 16 , Nov 9, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                [How would your individual (subjective) expression of freedom/choice not be
                                anathematic to my individual (subjective) expression of my freedom/choice?]

                                Maybe it would. Life has no guarantees.

                                [With subjectivism being a center point in Existentialism, how and who
                                decides what
                                subjective view is ' more' correct between us or a large group?]

                                There is no automatic answer. Philosophy, or in this case Existentialism in
                                particular, is a large body of writing that, over the span of time, has built
                                up arguments and points of view, some of them diverse. No one ever said that
                                anyone could learn to be an absolute or perfect arbiter. But because there is no
                                transcendental canon of truth doesn't mean that one should have no sense of
                                value at all.

                                [If you or me were in conflict as to what is the right interpretation or what
                                the correct actions to take, don't you think the ' I am whatever I am ' would
                                sprout authoritarianism?]

                                You have me mistaken for someone else. That is not my line.

                                [Because you did mentioned that due to the encouragement of radical freedom
                                in Existentialism, authoritarianism would/should be anathematic to
                                Existentialism.]

                                No, you have that wrong, sorry. What I said was, "Freedom, taken logically
                                beyond just someone's freedom to everyone's freedom, and to the liberation of
                                those in need of it, would of course be anathematic to authoritarianism." It is
                                a matter of logical consistency.

                                WS


                                In a message dated 11/9/06 7:56:45 PM, netjaysd@... writes:


                                > Wil,
                                >
                                > How do you define radical freedom ? How would your individual ( subjective )
                                > expression of freedom/choice not be anathematic to my individual (
                                > subjective )
                                > expression of my freedom/choice ? ?
                                > With subjectivism being a center point in Extentialism, how and who decides
                                > what
                                > subjective view is ' more' correct between us or a large group ? ? If you or
                                > me were in
                                > conflict as to what is the right interpretation or what the correct actions
                                > to take, don't you
                                > think the ' I am whatever I am ' would sprout authoriatarinism ? Because you
                                > did
                                > mentioned that due to the encouragement of radical freedom in
                                > Existentialism,
                                > authoritarianism would/should be anathematic to Existentialism. Do we have
                                > responsiblities between us ?
                                > > And again with subjectivity being the viewpoint of understanding reality,
                                > how
                                > can ' academic formulations' be expressed as deeds/actions and not just
                                > words or
                                > opinions ? And with the desire to open the philosophical discussion to the
                                > public at large
                                > what is the practical value of 'academic' discussions to the public at large
                                > ? Academia
                                > seems anathematic to generalities.
                                >
                                > Jay
                                > > Jay,
                                > >
                                > > Existentialism, in its 'academic' and literary formulations (which is
                                > always
                                > > where I am coming from, it seems), was a public discourse, nevertheless.
                                > By
                                > > public I mean one that sought to open philosophical discussion to
                                > > humanity-at- humanity-at-<wbr>large. (This was especially true in the case
                                > of Sartre.
                                > > inherently a liberal-humanist discourse, a leftist one, that had at its
                                > base the
                                > > concept of radical freedom. Freedom, taken logically beyond just someone's
                                > freedom
                                > > to everyone's freedom, and to the liberation of those in need of it, would
                                > of
                                > > course be anathematic to authoritarianism.
                                > >
                                > > That said, if one were an authoritarian, one would oneself have
                                > existential
                                > > issues, so I guess one could write a limited kind of existentialism for
                                > > sadists, bullies, dictators and the like -- but, outside of writing from
                                > the
                                > > Nuremburg trials, I haven't seen anything like that as yet.
                                > >
                                > > Wil
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > In a message dated 11/3/06 12:24:09 AM, netjaysd@... writes:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Wil,
                                > > >
                                > > > The original question to Louise was 'Authoritarianism is incompatible
                                > with
                                > > > Extentialism, how or why not ?'
                                > > > Jay
                                >



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Mary
                                Forgive my sloth. This past week has been a whirlwind, now nearly past. I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at
                                Message 15 of 16 , Nov 10, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Forgive my sloth. This past week has been a whirlwind, now nearly past.

                                  "I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men
                                  have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand
                                  years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even
                                  when the former is dangerous and the latter safe... I believe that any
                                  man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to
                                  become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however
                                  slight the measure, is bound to become a slave."

                                  H. L. Mencken

                                  It seems Nietzsche understood this better than either Kierkegaard or
                                  Sartre, philosophically speaking. And of course, not much can free us
                                  from our own perception(s).

                                  Mary

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

                                  No, you have that wrong, sorry. What I said was, "Freedom, taken
                                  logically beyond just someone's freedom to everyone's freedom, and to
                                  the liberation of those in need of it, would of course be anathematic
                                  to authoritarianism. It is a matter of logical consistency.
                                • louise
                                  Mary, What is this about forgiveness? At existlist? My inertia must do battle with your sloth. We need Kierkegaard, to delineate the difference between
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Nov 10, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Mary,

                                    What is this about forgiveness? At existlist? My inertia must do
                                    battle with your sloth. We need Kierkegaard, to delineate the
                                    difference between liberty and freedom, in a more extended field
                                    than is attempted by Nietzsche. Still, that assertion is as bald
                                    and unsubstantiated as your own. If danger fosters the rescuing
                                    power, as Holderlin relates, so may exhaustion summon forth faith.
                                    In that process I trust, and wish to make good my claims in the
                                    fullness of time. Bill has opined that the present does not respect
                                    the past, and I guess that from where I stand such a tendency,
                                    though scarce believable to one of my persuasion, represents the
                                    kind of despair from which the Dane shows the way to deliverance.

                                    Louise

                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <agignesthai@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Forgive my sloth. This past week has been a whirlwind, now nearly
                                    past.
                                    >
                                    > "I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that
                                    men
                                    > have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand
                                    > years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free,
                                    even
                                    > when the former is dangerous and the latter safe... I believe that
                                    any
                                    > man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to
                                    > become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in
                                    however
                                    > slight the measure, is bound to become a slave."
                                    >
                                    > H. L. Mencken
                                    >
                                    > It seems Nietzsche understood this better than either Kierkegaard
                                    or
                                    > Sartre, philosophically speaking. And of course, not much can free
                                    us
                                    > from our own perception(s).
                                    >
                                    > Mary
                                    >
                                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                    >
                                    > No, you have that wrong, sorry. What I said was, "Freedom, taken
                                    > logically beyond just someone's freedom to everyone's freedom, and
                                    to
                                    > the liberation of those in need of it, would of course be
                                    anathematic
                                    > to authoritarianism. It is a matter of logical consistency.
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.