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

Re: flipping switches

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    I m pretty sure that Wil is quipping, or at least winking; when he replies to CSW with the relativist statement we agree to disagree over value judgment
    Message 1 of 25 , Feb 21, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm pretty sure that Wil is quipping, or at least winking; when he
      replies to CSW with the relativist statement "we agree to disagree"
      over value judgment conflicts. I'm sure as Mary wrestles her way
      through Barnes she will suddenly discover the existential view of
      "ethics" has absolutely nothing to do with edifying knowledge toward
      the self. Some years back Berlin made a little Kantian kind of
      argument that at the time pretty much differentiated existentialism
      from any other general philosophical view. He proposed that individual
      differences in individual human rational processes could give rise to
      incommensurable values between individuals - that is values that were
      not open to rational compromise. Or to go further off into Knotthead's
      (from this list) terms: individual differences in the individual
      rational processes of human beings account for closed belief systems -
      that is you see as you want to see, clams can be any color. Bunk. The
      scientific fact is that an individual of a species cannot produce
      through a rational process (that is already itself an evolved quality
      of a species) any value incommensurable with any other value produced
      by any other member of the species, because the fundamental rational
      process does not vary enough within the species to produce any such
      incommensurable views individual to individual. The rational processes
      of individuals may produce different values but they are all open to
      genuine rational compromise. To give Bill his due here - just like
      Justice Holmes and common law, existentialism goes around the whole
      issue by proposing that what we rationally erect as individuals is a
      "desire to believe" system rather than a belief system; something as
      such open to changing desires to believe, given that actual belief is
      unattainable. (In the case of Holmes' view of the law timing is of
      importance due to developmental changes in society) For Sartre, for
      Onfray, for the existentialist, the self with which we need to believe
      can only press us with a desire to believe things, because without the
      complete self we cannot completely believe anything, and we cannot
      attain the complete self. So ethics, law, morality, values, are all
      fluid and driven by a "desire to believe" rational system, a system of
      proposed behavior. The anchor of the system is not the individual, nor
      the majority, nor belief; but rather its permanent fluidity toward
      desire and its utter rationality individual to individual. The key to
      its convolutions and/or conflicts is simply rational effort toward
      desire. Being a human rational edifice it cannot produce a value
      incommensurable to any human. Any conflict is aesthetic, that is in
      the pictures of desire painted toward self proposition. They are not
      real, just hopes and/or fears.

      Trinidad


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <agignesthai@...> wrote:
      >
      > More from Hazel Barnes' - Sartre's reversal:
      > __________
      >
      > At the time of the publication of "Being and Nothingness" in 1943, it
      > was possible to argue that the seeds of a responsible ethics were
      > already present in Sartre's philosophy. He himself promised this
      > development in a later work. In the late fifties I tried to show that
      > the connection between Sartre's fictional examination of ethical
      > choices and his ontology was closer than most critics were willing to
      > admit. Had I been writing the present book before 1960, I should have
      > proceeded immediately at this point to show that those who denied the
      > possibility of an existentialist ethics were both disregarding the
      > positive side of Sartre's work and setting up untenable criteria for
      > what an ethics must be. Now in the mid-sixties, we must first
      > confront another problem. This is the fact that Sartre himself has
      > stated flatly that he no longer has any interest in writing an
      > ethics. More than that, he apparently believes that the project of
      > working out a formal ethics is an irrelevance, an escapism, if not a
      > downright impossibility.
      > __________
      >
      > Ethics are based on preferred values. If you don't know who you were,
      > are, or want to become, you probably shouldn't be defining ethics for
      > anyone else.
      >
      > Mary
      >
    • Exist List Moderator
      ... However, as societies we do collectively adopt legal systems based on larger ethical systems. In a seminar for my doctoral degree various statements about
      Message 2 of 25 , Feb 21, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Feb 21, 2007, at 8:29, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

        > I'm pretty sure that Wil is quipping, or at least winking; when he
        > replies to CSW with the relativist statement "we agree to disagree"
        > over value judgment conflicts.

        However, as societies we do collectively adopt legal systems based on
        larger ethical systems. In a seminar for my doctoral degree various
        statements about ethics being group, morals being individual, were
        discussed. For example, professional organizations adopt "ethical
        guidelines" often to exempt themselves from "normed" ethics; this is
        why "legal ethics" are not ones we would want for the rest of
        society. Despite these ethical systems, and individual's morality
        might resist these larger systems. A public defender, in a fit of
        conscious, might decide the rapist he's defending cannot be -- should
        not be -- defended and leak information to the prosecution. Is this
        moral? Maybe. Ethical? Certainly not within the profession.

        When we debate our moral positions, we are trying to establish larger
        social systems of ethics.

        My problems with government rest in the fact I have not seen
        overwhelming evidence that our government acts in a moral manner. I
        simply do not trust our system to get things right when it legislates
        morality or pretends to defend individual freedoms. Worse, most of
        the public is quite willing to surrender some rights or to allow
        special treatment for some classes of individuals.

        What I found in my classes was a willingness to add laws to laws,
        regulations to regulations, hoping that each new limitation would
        correct the failings of the larger ethical system. Each new law
        having unintended consequences, more laws end up necessary. I think
        political parties exist to placate the masses while helping those in
        powerful positions. As a result, lots of great sounding laws are
        passed, but they have loopholes for the powerful.

        My position does not draw from Sartre, it is closer to Nietzsche.
        "Existential ethics" is usually meant to suggest Sartre's various
        attempts to construct a humanism in response to negative perceptions
        of "existentialism" as raw individualism. I happen to like
        individualism, knowing the masses are often "wrong" in my view.
        They'll support laws like the Patriot Act, the creation of Homeland
        Security, and who knows what else when leaders create an atmosphere
        of fear. In fact, the more things the public can be made to fear, the
        more laws they demand and the more power government takes.

        Fear is the tool, the empowering and intoxicating wine, consumed by
        politicians. Fearful people seek a saviour and trade their free will
        for protections.

        I know, it would be better to be idealistic and trust the powerful.
        If I were idealistic, though, I wouldn't want many laws because
        people would do the "right things" for each other without being
        forced to behave ethically. Their morals would match mine, our ethics
        would be a common form of "Do unto others" and "help your neighbor in
        his time of need."

        - C. S. Wyatt
        I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
        that I shall be.
        http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
        http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
      • eupraxis@aol.com
        I would love to respond to CSW and TC (who seems to know my position, anyway), but as luck would have it, I was at Mardi Gras. This means that I am in no
        Message 3 of 25 , Feb 21, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I would love to respond to CSW and TC (who seems to know my position, anyway), but as luck would have it, I was at Mardi Gras. This means that I am in no position to say anything more than "nolo contendere", due to myrather compromised state of mind (what mind?).

          Wil
          May I rest in peace

          -----Original Message-----
          From: existlist1@...
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 2:31 PM
          Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: flipping switches

          On Feb 21, 2007, at 8:29, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

          > I'm pretty sure that Wil is quipping, or at least winking; when he
          > replies to CSW with the relativist statement "we agree to disagree"
          > over value judgment conflicts.

          However, as societies we do collectively adopt legal systems based on
          larger ethical systems. In a seminar for my doctoral degree various
          statements about ethics being group, morals being individual, were
          discussed. For example, professional organizations adopt "ethical
          guidelines" often to exempt themselves from "normed" ethics; this is
          why "legal ethics" are not ones we would want for the rest of
          society. Despite these ethical systems, and individual's morality
          might resist these larger systems. A public defender, in a fit of
          conscious, might decide the rapist he's defending cannot be -- should
          not be -- defended and leak information to the prosecution. Is this
          moral? Maybe. Ethical? Certainly not within the profession.

          When we debate our moral positions, we are trying to establish larger
          social systems of ethics.

          My problems with government rest in the fact I have not seen
          overwhelming evidence that our government acts in a moral manner. I
          simply do not trust our system to get things right when it legislates
          morality or pretends to defend individual freedoms. Worse, most of
          the public is quite willing to surrender some rights or to allow
          special treatment for some classes of individuals.

          What I found in my classes was a willingness to add laws to laws,
          regulations to regulations, hoping that each new limitation would
          correct the failings of the larger ethical system. Each new law
          having unintended consequences, more laws end up necessary. I think
          political parties exist to placate the masses while helping those in
          powerful positions. As a result, lots of great sounding laws are
          passed, but they have loopholes for the powerful.

          My position does not draw from Sartre, it is closer to Nietzsche.
          "Existential ethics" is usually meant to suggest Sartre's various
          attempts to construct a humanism in response to negative perceptions
          of "existentialism" as raw individualism. I happen to like
          individualism, knowing the masses are often "wrong" in my view.
          They'll support laws like the Patriot Act, the creation of Homeland
          Security, and who knows what else when leaders create an atmosphere
          of fear. In fact, the more things the public can be made to fear, the
          more laws they demand and the more power government takes.

          Fear is the tool, the empowering and intoxicating wine, consumed by
          politicians. Fearful people seek a saviour and trade their free will
          for protections.

          I know, it would be better to be idealistic and trust the powerful.
          If I were idealistic, though, I wouldn't want many laws because
          people would do the "right things" for each other without being
          forced to behave ethically. Their morals would match mine, our ethics
          would be a common form of "Do unto others" and "help your neighbor in
          his time of need."

          - C. S. Wyatt
          I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
          that I shall be.
          http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
          http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer


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


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • louise
          If I were you, Wil, I shouldn t worry too much about TC s view of your position. Just remember, this being existlist, the individual defines everything ,
          Message 4 of 25 , Feb 21, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            If I were you, Wil, I shouldn't worry too much about TC's view of
            your position. Just remember, this being existlist, "the individual
            defines everything", although, admittedly, that can create a lot of
            work once there's some distracting attribution to ignore or
            interpret. After three years' experience, I konw how wearing is the
            process. Really, there's nothing so mystical about internet
            communication. If you're posting here, I'm assuming you're very
            much alive. Things are beginning to look good, from my perspective,
            though I'm rather too exhausted quite to believe my own assurances.
            Within the given democratic system, the British one, that is, where
            I live, my own instincts, at any rate, are liberal, so that my
            political position has a certain amount in common with the
            individualist libertarianism described by CSW. That said, it is no
            easy matter to make comparisons between political systems in USA and
            UK. Personally, I prefer to forget about politics altogether, and
            concentrate on the philosophical and literary aspects of what it is
            to be a contemporary individual, passionately engaged in existence.
            On these grounds, I continue interested in reading the works of SK,
            Nietzsche, Heidegger, and others. Politics and economics, however,
            are terribly important, affecting every single life on the planet,
            obviously, yet statements pertaining thereto are difficult to make
            with exactitude except in areas where one has particular knowledge.
            I learnt long ago, from those whom I most respect, both the living
            and the dead, how learning to know more increases my sense of how
            little I know. Louise
          • Trinidad Cruz
            I have followed this discussion for a few weeks now, and it began with Neitzche, and eventually arrived at Mary s perusal of Barnes. I have contributed to
            Message 5 of 25 , Feb 22, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I have followed this discussion for a few weeks now, and it began with
              Neitzche, and eventually arrived at Mary's perusal of Barnes. I have
              contributed to clarifying what is actually "existentialist" toward the
              answering of Barnes particular blindspot.I don't think we can be
              particularly sure that Sartre missed his own point only that he
              refused to bother with it. Who knows why. We can only speculate.
              Although it was probably tied up in his fear of the American Military
              Industrial complex. I'm sure he took IKE's speech to heart. The
              subjective proposition was: could there ever be such a thing as
              existential ethics?

              "A public defender, in a fit of conscious, might decide the rapist
              he's defending cannot be -- should not be -- defended and leak
              information to the prosecution. Is this moral? Maybe. Ethical?
              Certainly not within the profession." (CSW)

              Actually this example, may indeed be that kind of ethic. Why should a
              defense attorney defend a guilty man with as much vigor as an innocent
              man? Simply because the judgment of the people in a fairly conducted
              trial is WORTH MORE to the people than any one man's condemnation of a
              criminal. There is no value (as in rational gain) to be had by the
              victim or the perpetrator in any trial. All the gains of a fair trial
              are had by the people of the trying society which also includes the
              victims family. A well conducted and fair trial is a defense of that
              developing rationality in common that society is. Laws can be wrong
              and can be societal mistakes, but fair trials are not. They are
              utterly for the benefit of the people. The trial itself holds the
              potential to be worth more to the people than the victim or the guilt
              or innocence of the perpetator. Let's consider Barry Scheck and the
              Simpson trial. OJ got off and probably deserved the death penalty but
              many wrongly convicted people were set free afterwards by Scheck and
              his organization and many crime labs were forced into better more
              precise procedures. Who benefitted from this ethic - the people of
              this society. The fair trial, common law, legal representation, are
              remarkable things. Things I believe beneficial to the world in
              general. One could readily argue that defending a client known to be
              guilty with as much vigor as an innocent man is an existential ethic.
              Nothing, and I mean nothing in human history, has ever dignified the
              victim of a crime more. I really think we should continue to fish
              around for some more. There may be more out there than we think.

              tc



              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
              <existlist1@...> wrote:
              >
              > On Feb 21, 2007, at 8:29, Trinidad Cruz wrote:
              >
              > > I'm pretty sure that Wil is quipping, or at least winking; when he
              > > replies to CSW with the relativist statement "we agree to disagree"
              > > over value judgment conflicts.
              >
              > However, as societies we do collectively adopt legal systems based on
              > larger ethical systems. In a seminar for my doctoral degree various
              > statements about ethics being group, morals being individual, were
              > discussed. For example, professional organizations adopt "ethical
              > guidelines" often to exempt themselves from "normed" ethics; this is
              > why "legal ethics" are not ones we would want for the rest of
              > society. Despite these ethical systems, and individual's morality
              > might resist these larger systems. A public defender, in a fit of
              > conscious, might decide the rapist he's defending cannot be -- should
              > not be -- defended and leak information to the prosecution. Is this
              > moral? Maybe. Ethical? Certainly not within the profession.
              >
              > When we debate our moral positions, we are trying to establish larger
              > social systems of ethics.
              >
              > My problems with government rest in the fact I have not seen
              > overwhelming evidence that our government acts in a moral manner. I
              > simply do not trust our system to get things right when it legislates
              > morality or pretends to defend individual freedoms. Worse, most of
              > the public is quite willing to surrender some rights or to allow
              > special treatment for some classes of individuals.
              >
              > What I found in my classes was a willingness to add laws to laws,
              > regulations to regulations, hoping that each new limitation would
              > correct the failings of the larger ethical system. Each new law
              > having unintended consequences, more laws end up necessary. I think
              > political parties exist to placate the masses while helping those in
              > powerful positions. As a result, lots of great sounding laws are
              > passed, but they have loopholes for the powerful.
              >
              > My position does not draw from Sartre, it is closer to Nietzsche.
              > "Existential ethics" is usually meant to suggest Sartre's various
              > attempts to construct a humanism in response to negative perceptions
              > of "existentialism" as raw individualism. I happen to like
              > individualism, knowing the masses are often "wrong" in my view.
              > They'll support laws like the Patriot Act, the creation of Homeland
              > Security, and who knows what else when leaders create an atmosphere
              > of fear. In fact, the more things the public can be made to fear, the
              > more laws they demand and the more power government takes.
              >
              > Fear is the tool, the empowering and intoxicating wine, consumed by
              > politicians. Fearful people seek a saviour and trade their free will
              > for protections.
              >
              > I know, it would be better to be idealistic and trust the powerful.
              > If I were idealistic, though, I wouldn't want many laws because
              > people would do the "right things" for each other without being
              > forced to behave ethically. Their morals would match mine, our ethics
              > would be a common form of "Do unto others" and "help your neighbor in
              > his time of need."
              >
              > - C. S. Wyatt
              > I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
              > that I shall be.
              > http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
              > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
              >
            • Exist List Moderator
              TC: I certainly think a lawyer unable to comply with the ethics of his field has to consider another pursuit or aspect of law. However, morality being
              Message 6 of 25 , Feb 22, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                TC:

                I certainly think a lawyer unable to comply with the ethics of his
                field has to consider another pursuit or aspect of law. However,
                morality being individual and situations arising when you might find
                ethics problematic is applicable to law. If I were a public defender
                and knew a serial pedophile was about to escape justice, such an
                individual will very likely harm others. This is why some countries
                compel attorneys with knowledge of future risk to act differently. An
                officer of the court is still that -- an officer of the court. A
                private defense attorney has the freedom to skip a case or even ask
                to be recused during trial if he or she faces an ethical / moral
                situation.

                The O.J. fiasco resulted in good and bad for our system. California
                revised some evidence laws, a possibly racist cop became a
                millionaire author and speaker, and juries started to demand perfect
                evidence from criminologists (which is nothing like CSI on
                television). I think cameras in the court room then are why we have
                the mess now with A. N. Smith.

                As a society, we need to remind ourselves that our system is not
                perfect and cannot be so. We have to decide, as a society, what
                discretion we will give to judges. I think things like "three
                strikes" violate the notion of sentencing discretion. Absolutes, like
                10-year sentences for possession of drugs with intent, do not take
                situations into consideration, which bothers me. A judge and jury
                should be allowed to consider more than guilt or innocence, but
                voters and legislators keep passing absolutes, imposing them on judges.

                Again, my "anti-law" (not anarchistic view, but minimalist) view
                includes allowing courts more discretion, not less.

                Then again, I think plea bargains and reduced sentences are good for
                the system. I'd rather have a mom with pot or even coke plea to a
                misdemeanor than serve time. I'd rather concentrate on the violent
                criminals and funding better science to protect our rights.

                - CSW
              • bhvwd
                ... individual ... to ... were ... Knotthead s ... systems - ... The ... quality ... produced ... processes ... is ... believe ... the ... of ... nor ... to
                Message 7 of 25 , Feb 22, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > I'm pretty sure that Wil is quipping, or at least winking; when he
                  > replies to CSW with the relativist statement "we agree to disagree"
                  > over value judgment conflicts. I'm sure as Mary wrestles her way
                  > through Barnes she will suddenly discover the existential view of
                  > "ethics" has absolutely nothing to do with edifying knowledge toward
                  > the self. Some years back Berlin made a little Kantian kind of
                  > argument that at the time pretty much differentiated existentialism
                  > from any other general philosophical view. He proposed that
                  individual
                  > differences in individual human rational processes could give rise
                  to
                  > incommensurable values between individuals - that is values that
                  were
                  > not open to rational compromise. Or to go further off into
                  Knotthead's
                  > (from this list) terms: individual differences in the individual
                  > rational processes of human beings account for closed belief
                  systems -
                  > that is you see as you want to see, clams can be any color. Bunk.
                  The
                  > scientific fact is that an individual of a species cannot produce
                  > through a rational process (that is already itself an evolved
                  quality
                  > of a species) any value incommensurable with any other value
                  produced
                  > by any other member of the species, because the fundamental rational
                  > process does not vary enough within the species to produce any such
                  > incommensurable views individual to individual. The rational
                  processes
                  > of individuals may produce different values but they are all open to
                  > genuine rational compromise. To give Bill his due here - just like
                  > Justice Holmes and common law, existentialism goes around the whole
                  > issue by proposing that what we rationally erect as individuals is a
                  > "desire to believe" system rather than a belief system; something as
                  > such open to changing desires to believe, given that actual belief
                  is
                  > unattainable. (In the case of Holmes' view of the law timing is of
                  > importance due to developmental changes in society) For Sartre, for
                  > Onfray, for the existentialist, the self with which we need to
                  believe
                  > can only press us with a desire to believe things, because without
                  the
                  > complete self we cannot completely believe anything, and we cannot
                  > attain the complete self. So ethics, law, morality, values, are all
                  > fluid and driven by a "desire to believe" rational system, a system
                  of
                  > proposed behavior. The anchor of the system is not the individual,
                  nor
                  > the majority, nor belief; but rather its permanent fluidity toward
                  > desire and its utter rationality individual to individual. The key
                  to
                  > its convolutions and/or conflicts is simply rational effort toward
                  > desire. Being a human rational edifice it cannot produce a value
                  > incommensurable to any human. Any conflict is aesthetic, that is in
                  > the pictures of desire painted toward self proposition. They are not
                  > real, just hopes and/or fears.
                  >
                  > Trinidad
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <agignesthai@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > More from Hazel Barnes' - Sartre's reversal:
                  > > __________
                  > >
                  > > At the time of the publication of "Being and Nothingness" in
                  1943, it
                  > > was possible to argue that the seeds of a responsible ethics were
                  > > already present in Sartre's philosophy. He himself promised this
                  > > development in a later work. In the late fifties I tried to show
                  that
                  > > the connection between Sartre's fictional examination of ethical
                  > > choices and his ontology was closer than most critics were
                  willing to
                  > > admit. Had I been writing the present book before 1960, I should
                  have
                  > > proceeded immediately at this point to show that those who denied
                  the
                  > > possibility of an existentialist ethics were both disregarding
                  the
                  > > positive side of Sartre's work and setting up untenable criteria
                  for
                  > > what an ethics must be. Now in the mid-sixties, we must first
                  > > confront another problem. This is the fact that Sartre himself
                  has
                  > > stated flatly that he no longer has any interest in writing an
                  > > ethics. More than that, he apparently believes that the project
                  of
                  > > working out a formal ethics is an irrelevance, an escapism, if
                  not a
                  > > downright impossibility.
                  > > __________
                  > >
                  > > Ethics are based on preferred values. If you don't know who you
                  were,
                  > > are, or want to become, you probably shouldn't be defining ethics
                  for
                  > > anyone else.
                  > >
                  > > Mary
                  > >Mary, I`m goin to SF. If I can ill pretend to care about you
                  YAHOO will love it, Bill
                  >
                • Knott
                  ... Part of the reason people argue with any other set of ideals is that they don t even come close to understanding them in the first place. It is not a
                  Message 8 of 25 , Feb 23, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >Or to go further off into Knotthead's
                    >from this list) terms: individual
                    >differences in the individual
                    >rational processes of human beings
                    >account for closed belief systems -
                    >that is you see as you want to see,
                    >clams can be any color. Bunk.

                    Part of the reason people argue with any other set of ideals is that
                    they don't even come close to understanding them in the first place.
                    It is not a surprise in the case of TC always hoping the other guy is
                    a little more stupid than even his own interpretations.

                    It isn't so much a matter of "want to see" as "do see" and that may be
                    for any reason--the initial interprestation was wrong, the situation
                    changed, the last interpretation was wrong, the first interpretation
                    was compromised, the last was, the clever interpretation or perhaps an
                    artistic vibe, previous association, or ASSumption, etc. People can
                    have a lack of 'sanity' or ability to follow obvious conclusions. For
                    some people the obvious isn't quite so obvious -- take this
                    conversation for example and have a look at TC's interpretation of my
                    clam solliloquy.

                    An aside: The word "bunk", spoken with no matter how much authority,
                    is not a proof.

                    >The
                    >scientific fact is that an individual
                    >of a species cannot produce
                    >through a rational process (that is
                    >already itself an evolved quality
                    >of a species) any value incommensurable
                    >with any other value produced
                    >by any other member of the species

                    When one makes up their own 'scientific facts' all is pretty
                    convenient to prove. My suggestion would be, in the extreme of course,
                    that insanity or hallucination does play a part in perception.
                    Insanity being, perhaps the inability to hook up individual perception
                    to that which most of us hysterical nincompoops believe to be real. In
                    other words, I believe there is scientific 'proof' that there is
                    sometimes a rift between common measure and individual perception --
                    or interpretation.

                    Sorry if you don't understand all that, perhaps I misstated. But to me
                    it seems clear. If it isn't to the both of us, and it is the same set
                    of words, then perhaps it proves my point just as well.

                    PS - this was not an invitation to get into mud-slinging, it was just
                    an opportunity to avoid the tarnish of your poorly fitted
                    interpretation of what I thought was obvious.

                    Cracking Flowers
                  • Trinidad Cruz
                    Julian you need to get out more. The have been several well argued criticisms of Berlin s position, both for and against. Maybe a few pothead physicists and
                    Message 9 of 25 , Feb 23, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Julian you need to get out more. The have been several well argued
                      criticisms of Berlin's position, both for and against. Maybe a few
                      pothead physicists and intelligent designers wouldn't line up on my
                      side of the bar, and some high school teachers, but most biologists
                      and anthropologists would. I guess that would be enough to make it
                      "scientific". As far a fact - first you have to understand what
                      "scientific" means as it qualifies the fact. In any case concerning
                      evolution, species, and individual presentation from a species the
                      theory itself seems incapable of assuming such terms as
                      "incommensurable" individual to species. Incommensurable is one of the
                      God type terms. But then that's just an opinion.

                      tc

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > >Or to go further off into Knotthead's
                      > >from this list) terms: individual
                      > >differences in the individual
                      > >rational processes of human beings
                      > >account for closed belief systems -
                      > >that is you see as you want to see,
                      > >clams can be any color. Bunk.
                      >
                      > Part of the reason people argue with any other set of ideals is that
                      > they don't even come close to understanding them in the first place.
                      > It is not a surprise in the case of TC always hoping the other guy is
                      > a little more stupid than even his own interpretations.
                      >
                      > It isn't so much a matter of "want to see" as "do see" and that may be
                      > for any reason--the initial interprestation was wrong, the situation
                      > changed, the last interpretation was wrong, the first interpretation
                      > was compromised, the last was, the clever interpretation or perhaps an
                      > artistic vibe, previous association, or ASSumption, etc. People can
                      > have a lack of 'sanity' or ability to follow obvious conclusions. For
                      > some people the obvious isn't quite so obvious -- take this
                      > conversation for example and have a look at TC's interpretation of my
                      > clam solliloquy.
                      >
                      > An aside: The word "bunk", spoken with no matter how much authority,
                      > is not a proof.
                      >
                      > >The
                      > >scientific fact is that an individual
                      > >of a species cannot produce
                      > >through a rational process (that is
                      > >already itself an evolved quality
                      > >of a species) any value incommensurable
                      > >with any other value produced
                      > >by any other member of the species
                      >
                      > When one makes up their own 'scientific facts' all is pretty
                      > convenient to prove. My suggestion would be, in the extreme of course,
                      > that insanity or hallucination does play a part in perception.
                      > Insanity being, perhaps the inability to hook up individual perception
                      > to that which most of us hysterical nincompoops believe to be real. In
                      > other words, I believe there is scientific 'proof' that there is
                      > sometimes a rift between common measure and individual perception --
                      > or interpretation.
                      >
                      > Sorry if you don't understand all that, perhaps I misstated. But to me
                      > it seems clear. If it isn't to the both of us, and it is the same set
                      > of words, then perhaps it proves my point just as well.
                      >
                      > PS - this was not an invitation to get into mud-slinging, it was just
                      > an opportunity to avoid the tarnish of your poorly fitted
                      > interpretation of what I thought was obvious.
                      >
                      > Cracking Flowers
                      >
                    • louise
                      ... the ... I would like to bring to the attention of the moderator the fact that Trinidad Cruz persists in making personal and snide comments instead of
                      Message 10 of 25 , Feb 23, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Julian you need to get out more. The have been several well argued
                        > criticisms of Berlin's position, both for and against. Maybe a few
                        > pothead physicists and intelligent designers wouldn't line up on my
                        > side of the bar, and some high school teachers, but most biologists
                        > and anthropologists would. I guess that would be enough to make it
                        > "scientific". As far a fact - first you have to understand what
                        > "scientific" means as it qualifies the fact. In any case concerning
                        > evolution, species, and individual presentation from a species the
                        > theory itself seems incapable of assuming such terms as
                        > "incommensurable" individual to species. Incommensurable is one of
                        the
                        > God type terms. But then that's just an opinion.
                        >
                        > tc

                        I would like to bring to the attention of the moderator the fact
                        that Trinidad Cruz persists in making personal and snide comments
                        instead of addressing arguments. My motive is selfish. I have not
                        yet recovered from his diatribes in my direction, from the time when
                        he called me a witch and told me to fuck off. As I have said from
                        the beginning, my health is my own responsibility. All I wish to do
                        is to register a protest, in no way to suggest that TC be moderated
                        or receive another kick. I have always regarded these matters as
                        the prerogative of listowner and appointed moderator.

                        Louise
                        ... resting at home
                      • Trinidad Cruz
                        This responsibility officer of the court is to fulfil a role properly. Judges do not always allow attorneys to recuse themselves on moral cause precisely
                        Message 11 of 25 , Feb 23, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          This responsibility "officer of the court" is to fulfil a role
                          properly. Judges do not always allow attorneys to recuse themselves on
                          moral cause precisely because of that. If the moral qualms of the
                          attorney are viewed to be questions outside the law they are often
                          refused self-recusal, and they are still expected to present a
                          vigorous defense or face contempt.

                          I agree with some of what you obviously thoughtfully say here, but I
                          would remark that guilt or innocence are not absolutes simply decrees
                          of the state and its citizens about prevailing social rules. The death
                          penalty however is an absolute even in existential terms.

                          The only real reform that has always been needed is racially and
                          socially balanced jurys.

                          Most of the drug legislation is utterly political and has escalated
                          the basic problem by creating actual criminal opportunity. Making a
                          "black market" means inviting a larger criminal problem. It should
                          actually be treated more like alcohol "under the influence" laws with
                          heavier penalties when attached to other felonies.

                          I do not think there are any arguable absolutes other than death.
                          There are possibilities, probabilities, and human expression. I only
                          suggested the defense attorneys pledge to a rigorous defense to
                          illustrate the difficulty with defining "existential" ethics. In a
                          sense it is a pledge to defend what is immediately wrong in order to
                          preserve what is immediately right knowing full well that the "right"
                          and "wrong" of it are often only temporal social values. The
                          existentialist cannot ever know himself, in fact spends a lifetime
                          getting acquainted with himself. Every contemplation is a new hello.
                          Living as a human is utterly aesthetic and individual, but not outside
                          the evolved rational capacity of the species. The defense in court is
                          utterly aesthetic and individual, but not outside the evolving
                          rational essence of the law, thus never absolute.

                          Anyway I'm rambling. To argue for the possibility of "incommensurable"
                          values between human beings is to argue against evolution; indeed
                          religious in that it is to make a claim for absolutes other than
                          death. There is nothing like death. As clean. We all have dirty hands.

                          tc



                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                          <existlist1@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > TC:
                          >
                          > I certainly think a lawyer unable to comply with the ethics of his
                          > field has to consider another pursuit or aspect of law. However,
                          > morality being individual and situations arising when you might find
                          > ethics problematic is applicable to law. If I were a public defender
                          > and knew a serial pedophile was about to escape justice, such an
                          > individual will very likely harm others. This is why some countries
                          > compel attorneys with knowledge of future risk to act differently. An
                          > officer of the court is still that -- an officer of the court. A
                          > private defense attorney has the freedom to skip a case or even ask
                          > to be recused during trial if he or she faces an ethical / moral
                          > situation.
                          >
                          > The O.J. fiasco resulted in good and bad for our system. California
                          > revised some evidence laws, a possibly racist cop became a
                          > millionaire author and speaker, and juries started to demand perfect
                          > evidence from criminologists (which is nothing like CSI on
                          > television). I think cameras in the court room then are why we have
                          > the mess now with A. N. Smith.
                          >
                          > As a society, we need to remind ourselves that our system is not
                          > perfect and cannot be so. We have to decide, as a society, what
                          > discretion we will give to judges. I think things like "three
                          > strikes" violate the notion of sentencing discretion. Absolutes, like
                          > 10-year sentences for possession of drugs with intent, do not take
                          > situations into consideration, which bothers me. A judge and jury
                          > should be allowed to consider more than guilt or innocence, but
                          > voters and legislators keep passing absolutes, imposing them on judges.
                          >
                          > Again, my "anti-law" (not anarchistic view, but minimalist) view
                          > includes allowing courts more discretion, not less.
                          >
                          > Then again, I think plea bargains and reduced sentences are good for
                          > the system. I'd rather have a mom with pot or even coke plea to a
                          > misdemeanor than serve time. I'd rather concentrate on the violent
                          > criminals and funding better science to protect our rights.
                          >
                          > - CSW
                          >
                        • Knott
                          ... Can you please summarize what the hell this is supposed to mean? Julian
                          Message 12 of 25 , Feb 23, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Julian you need to get out more. The have been several well argued
                            > criticisms of Berlin's position, both for and against. Maybe a few
                            > pothead physicists and intelligent designers wouldn't line up on my
                            > side of the bar, and some high school teachers, but most biologists
                            > and anthropologists would. I guess that would be enough to make it
                            > "scientific". As far a fact - first you have to understand what
                            > "scientific" means as it qualifies the fact. In any case concerning
                            > evolution, species, and individual presentation from a species the
                            > theory itself seems incapable of assuming such terms as
                            > "incommensurable" individual to species. Incommensurable is one of the
                            > God type terms. But then that's just an opinion.

                            Can you please summarize what the hell this is supposed to mean?>

                            Julian
                          • Knott
                            ... Louise, I d love to agree with you, but frankly I can make heads nor tails of whatever he said, and I highly doubt it was making any sense whatsoever. Dr.
                            Message 13 of 25 , Feb 23, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > I would like to bring to the attention of the moderator the fact
                              > that Trinidad Cruz persists in making personal and snide comments
                              > instead of addressing arguments. My motive is selfish.

                              Louise,
                              I'd love to agree with you, but frankly I can make heads nor tails of
                              whatever he said, and I highly doubt it was making any sense whatsoever.

                              Dr. Nonsense
                            • Knott
                              ... Is this a distinction you are attempting to make from your usual posts? If so, I think you need to review them. Painting Pictures
                              Message 14 of 25 , Feb 23, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Anyway I'm rambling.

                                Is this a distinction you are attempting to make from your usual
                                posts? If so, I think you need to review them.

                                Painting Pictures
                              • Trinidad Cruz
                                Oh, Father, not once in your life have you trusted me. You thrust me at the head of things because I am your only son, but you first made sure of turning me
                                Message 15 of 25 , Feb 24, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  "Oh, Father, not once in your life have you trusted me. You thrust me
                                  at the head of things because I am your only son, but you first made
                                  sure of turning me into an ornament."

                                  Indeed. The existential condemnation. A collection of glass dancing
                                  dolls in the snow, no board, no game, no summary. Curiosity and
                                  shining of parts. I'll wager I can eat 50 parrots. What we have here
                                  is a failure to decorate.

                                  tc

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Julian you need to get out more. The have been several well argued
                                  > > criticisms of Berlin's position, both for and against. Maybe a few
                                  > > pothead physicists and intelligent designers wouldn't line up on my
                                  > > side of the bar, and some high school teachers, but most biologists
                                  > > and anthropologists would. I guess that would be enough to make it
                                  > > "scientific". As far a fact - first you have to understand what
                                  > > "scientific" means as it qualifies the fact. In any case concerning
                                  > > evolution, species, and individual presentation from a species the
                                  > > theory itself seems incapable of assuming such terms as
                                  > > "incommensurable" individual to species. Incommensurable is one of the
                                  > > God type terms. But then that's just an opinion.
                                  >
                                  > Can you please summarize what the hell this is supposed to mean?>
                                  >
                                  > Julian
                                  >
                                • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                                  much of the time i don t understand what people are quibbling about on this list even though i believe what existentialism is trying to address, confronting
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Feb 24, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    much of the time i don't understand what people are quibbling about on
                                    this list even though i believe what existentialism is trying to
                                    address, confronting one's mortality with some kind of meaning, is far
                                    more than the philosophy of a few Europeans of the last century. i
                                    think people have been doing this from who knows when and wherever on
                                    this planet, also in simple, stark language that anyone can understand.

                                    again, i speak from the concrete with which i happen to be familiar.
                                    here's a review of a movie that pretty much explains what i'm trying to
                                    say based on a play written in 1898 performed repeatedly since then by
                                    local theater troupes, including this year.

                                    <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475110/#comment>
                                    excerpt:
                                    <From the opening sequence as one of the fishermen dives into the frigid
                                    waters in a desperate attempt to make it back to the shore only to drown
                                    in seconds, to the ending when even the prospect of rescue is
                                    complicated by the fact that the rescue boat can only take some and the
                                    men have to draw lots to see who will get rescued and who will remain
                                    behind to face certain death, Naves Ena is a film that isn't afraid to
                                    look into the void. The true strength of the film is that we all can see
                                    bits of ourselves in these characters and through them are forced to
                                    examine our own notions of nobility, heroism and the inevitability of death.

                                    aija
                                  • Albert
                                    Julian, Ignorance is bliss, I would not suggest exposing yourself to any more of the below, it will only become more confusing as time passes. Expression has
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Feb 25, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Julian,

                                      Ignorance is bliss, I would not suggest exposing yourself to any more of the below, it will only become more confusing as time passes. Expression has indeed been twisted into nonsense...

                                      Albert
                                      .. laughing out loud.




                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: Knott
                                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:05 AM
                                      Subject: [existlist] Re: switches, nodes and noodles


                                      > Julian you need to get out more. The have been several well argued
                                      > criticisms of Berlin's position, both for and against. Maybe a few
                                      > pothead physicists and intelligent designers wouldn't line up on my
                                      > side of the bar, and some high school teachers, but most biologists
                                      > and anthropologists would. I guess that would be enough to make it
                                      > "scientific". As far a fact - first you have to understand what
                                      > "scientific" means as it qualifies the fact. In any case concerning
                                      > evolution, species, and individual presentation from a species the
                                      > theory itself seems incapable of assuming such terms as
                                      > "incommensurable" individual to species. Incommensurable is one of the
                                      > God type terms. But then that's just an opinion.

                                      Can you please summarize what the hell this is supposed to mean?>

                                      Julian






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


                                      No virus found in this incoming message.
                                      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                      Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/694 - Release Date: 2007/02/20 01:44 PM


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • louise
                                      Albert, Some truths don t change. We all reap what we sow. The practice of pseudonymous writing is itself matter for discussion, especially at a list where
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Feb 25, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Albert,

                                        Some truths don't change. We all reap what we sow. The practice of
                                        pseudonymous writing is itself matter for discussion, especially at
                                        a list where the master of such art, Soren Kierkegaard, is on topic
                                        to the group. Who is Julian, anyway???

                                        Louise
                                        ... reluctant to change her identity

                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Julian,
                                        >
                                        > Ignorance is bliss, I would not suggest exposing yourself to any
                                        more of the below, it will only become more confusing as time
                                        passes. Expression has indeed been twisted into nonsense...
                                        >
                                        > Albert
                                        > .. laughing out loud.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ----- Original Message -----
                                        > From: Knott
                                        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:05 AM
                                        > Subject: [existlist] Re: switches, nodes and noodles
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > > Julian you need to get out more. The have been several well
                                        argued
                                        > > criticisms of Berlin's position, both for and against. Maybe a
                                        few
                                        > > pothead physicists and intelligent designers wouldn't line up
                                        on my
                                        > > side of the bar, and some high school teachers, but most
                                        biologists
                                        > > and anthropologists would. I guess that would be enough to
                                        make it
                                        > > "scientific". As far a fact - first you have to understand what
                                        > > "scientific" means as it qualifies the fact. In any case
                                        concerning
                                        > > evolution, species, and individual presentation from a species
                                        the
                                        > > theory itself seems incapable of assuming such terms as
                                        > > "incommensurable" individual to species. Incommensurable is
                                        one of the
                                        > > God type terms. But then that's just an opinion.
                                        >
                                        > Can you please summarize what the hell this is supposed to mean?>
                                        >
                                        > Julian
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        -----------
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                        > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                        > Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/694 - Release Date:
                                        2007/02/20 01:44 PM
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                      • Albert
                                        Louise, I m sitting here at home trying to get a UDP component to echo a few bytes of data to a host who s connection on any port seems questionable to begin
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Feb 25, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Louise,

                                          I'm sitting here at home trying to get a UDP component to echo a few bytes of data to a host who's connection on any port seems questionable to begin with and it refuses to work ! My brain at the moment is not making sense of this or your post below. I will ponder on it later...
                                          It's 2am and I'm going to bed.

                                          Albert
                                          ... very sleepy


                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: louise
                                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:32 PM
                                          Subject: [existlist] Re: switches, nodes and noodles


                                          Albert,

                                          Some truths don't change. We all reap what we sow. The practice of
                                          pseudonymous writing is itself matter for discussion, especially at
                                          a list where the master of such art, Soren Kierkegaard, is on topic
                                          to the group. Who is Julian, anyway???

                                          Louise
                                          ... reluctant to change her identity

                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Julian,
                                          >
                                          > Ignorance is bliss, I would not suggest exposing yourself to any
                                          more of the below, it will only become more confusing as time
                                          passes. Expression has indeed been twisted into nonsense...
                                          >
                                          > Albert
                                          > .. laughing out loud.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ----- Original Message -----
                                          > From: Knott
                                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:05 AM
                                          > Subject: [existlist] Re: switches, nodes and noodles
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > > Julian you need to get out more. The have been several well
                                          argued
                                          > > criticisms of Berlin's position, both for and against. Maybe a
                                          few
                                          > > pothead physicists and intelligent designers wouldn't line up
                                          on my
                                          > > side of the bar, and some high school teachers, but most
                                          biologists
                                          > > and anthropologists would. I guess that would be enough to
                                          make it
                                          > > "scientific". As far a fact - first you have to understand what
                                          > > "scientific" means as it qualifies the fact. In any case
                                          concerning
                                          > > evolution, species, and individual presentation from a species
                                          the
                                          > > theory itself seems incapable of assuming such terms as
                                          > > "incommensurable" individual to species. Incommensurable is
                                          one of the
                                          > > God type terms. But then that's just an opinion.
                                          >
                                          > Can you please summarize what the hell this is supposed to mean?>
                                          >
                                          > Julian
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ----------------------------------------------------------
                                          -----------
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                          > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                          > Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/694 - Release Date:
                                          2007/02/20 01:44 PM
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >






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


                                          No virus found in this incoming message.
                                          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                          Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/702 - Release Date: 2007/02/25 03:16 PM


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Knott
                                          ... As clear as usual. Knott
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Feb 28, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            > "Oh, Father, not once in your life have you trusted me. You thrust me
                                            > at the head of things because I am your only son, but you first made
                                            > sure of turning me into an ornament."
                                            >
                                            > Indeed. The existential condemnation. A collection of glass dancing
                                            > dolls in the snow, no board, no game, no summary. Curiosity and
                                            > shining of parts. I'll wager I can eat 50 parrots. What we have here
                                            > is a failure to decorate.

                                            As clear as usual.

                                            Knott
                                          • Knott
                                            ... I disagree...it cannot become any more confusing than it already is. The author is assured to lean on lack of clarity as a vehicle for the amazing nothing
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Feb 28, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              > It will only become more confusing as time passes.

                                              I disagree...it cannot become any more confusing than it already is. The author is assured to
                                              lean on lack of clarity as a vehicle for the amazing nothing to be said. On the other hand I
                                              assume nothing...

                                              Flipping a Pair of Jacks
                                            • Knott
                                              ... I don t know, but I thought I d be polite. Perhaps more of the demented research . Julian
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Feb 28, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                > Who is Julian, anyway???

                                                I don't know, but I thought I'd be polite. Perhaps more of the demented 'research'.

                                                Julian
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.