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

Wil, 'The question'

Expand Messages
  • James Johnson
    Wil, The original question to Louise was Authoritarianism is incompatible with Extentialism, how or why not ? Jay ... understand/agree? ... ended ...
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.