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

Re: Our submission not your submission, Louise

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Nov 2, 2006
      --- 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 2 of 16 , Nov 2, 2006
        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 3 of 16 , Nov 2, 2006
          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 4 of 16 , Nov 2, 2006
            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 5 of 16 , Nov 3, 2006
              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 6 of 16 , Nov 3, 2006
                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 7 of 16 , Nov 3, 2006
                  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 8 of 16 , Nov 4, 2006
                    > 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 9 of 16 , Nov 4, 2006
                      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 10 of 16 , Nov 4, 2006
                        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 11 of 16 , Nov 9, 2006
                          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 12 of 16 , Nov 9, 2006
                            [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 13 of 16 , Nov 10, 2006
                              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 14 of 16 , Nov 10, 2006
                                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.