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

washing up

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    For me the human existential project is freedom. The fact is the human individual is freeing itself from a condition: of omniscience, of omnipotence, of
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 11, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      For me the human existential project is freedom. The fact is the human
      individual is freeing itself from a condition: of omniscience, of
      omnipotence, of perfection, of desolation, by way of individual human
      experience. I think all free human beings are aware of this at some
      fundamental level of comprehension. Freedom is just this: not knowing
      all, not being able to do all, incompleteness, and good real company.
      This is not necessarily in opposition to Christianity; though it gives
      a different and non-traditional significance to omniscience,
      omnipotence, perfection, and absolute desolation, and equates them
      essentially as the same value condition; and as it argues for the
      importance of a different historicity of human development in
      Christian dialectical terms it does not diminish the value of such
      propositions, but simply attempts to place them in their contextual
      place in human development. In fact omniscience, omnipotence,
      perfection, and absolute desolation, can only pre-date freedom in any
      proposed vector of awareness development. For the most part
      Christianity seems to be a failed attempt to correct a historical
      perception of the value of freedom, essentially overwhelmed by older
      more traditional views of the value of omniscience, omnipotence,
      perfection, and desolation. It has resorted to "faith" definitions to
      avert any acquiescence to human progress. In this tactic its failure
      of freedom is complete; and the growth rather than retreat of a nearly
      illiterate form of Biblical fundamentalism in a substantially
      liberated Western culture is ample and sound evidence of this fact.
      Modern Christianity is substantially adulterated, nearly wholly
      permeated, with a de-synchronization in fundamental human awareness
      that is essentially a self-sustaining apocalypse in progress. It is,
      and was from the times of the nascent organized "Church", an
      intentional assault on the value of human freedom by "men" who were
      then, and are now, altogether dispossessed of any shred of actual freedom.

      Christianity is often characterized as a syncretistic religion; and
      for the most part as far as its Judaic assumptions and Mesopotamian
      origins it is; but oddly, concerning its doctrine of bodily
      "resurrection", it is actually not so, certainly not to the degree
      that the rather popular Joseph Campbell, drawing on Frazer and Graves
      seems to imply. Actually other than Osiris and the "only implied"
      origins of Phoenix mythology there seems to be no arguable historical
      precursor for the bodily "resurrection" doctrine of Christianity, and
      both of these examples are rather wanting in comparison. It is
      arguable that almost all other mythologies concerning resurrection in
      the kind of qualifying terms that permeate Christian doctrine have
      later dates of origin than Christianity's first lurid proposition. If
      not unique, the fully elaborated Christian proposition of bodily
      resurrection is so very nearly unique; that to argue for a historical
      syncretistic source outside of Judaism is pointless, and yet from
      inside just as futile. It is not surprising that this is
      Christianity's view of itself concerning bodily resurrection, and most
      if not all Christian exposition and apology on the subject begin with
      at least the suggestion of vague syncretistic derivations from Judaism
      that end in the owning of a historically unique proposition actually
      indicative of no syncretistic source whatsoever. It is Christianity's
      syncretistic interpretation of itself that is a mess; and driven as it
      is by top down control and bottom up surrender, it can only
      inadequately suggest any ideas of freedom from its central and
      actually dialectical edifice. For the most part I agree with Sagan
      that Christianity has been a general hindrance to human development;
      but I must remark that it has also had some responsibility for the
      developing ideas of individual freedom that have had their nascence in
      certain quarters the last few centuries, though generally in an
      antagonistic dialect. Sadly, to lay claim to any actual assimilation
      of freedom Christianity now needs to undergo a self-immolation of its
      unrecognized dialectical edifice, and formally apologize to the human
      species.

      That existence precedes essence, clearly argues for a human
      existential project of freedom from desolation. There is only
      existence. Essence is imparted through existence. We are only aware of
      nothingness as what is being left out of existence. Omniscience,
      omnipotence, perfection, the qualities of absolute desolation, the
      qualities of nothingness, are only qualified because we exist to
      suggest the qualification. We exist simultaneously as an individual
      awareness within a species, as a species, as a spinning planet, as a
      cosmos never at rest. To know all, to be all, to be whole, to be alone
      - is to not exist. There is no all, there is no nothing, there is no
      absolute solitude; there is only existence and all propositions in
      existence are qualifications of what it is to exist of and upon the
      individual awareness proposing them - and its species, and its
      spinning planet, and its cosmos. We must urgently consider the
      responsibility of human thought to that primordial pool, that hearth
      and home of human freedom, - that is: our species, our planet, our
      cosmos.

      There are two kinds of people in the world: the free, and those who
      envy freedom. The free man is just that - free - so much so, that
      freedom is not something he considers at all. Freedom is existence to
      such a man. It is those who envy freedom, who press relentlessly for
      explanation, for understanding, for qualification, for illustration,
      for example, for argument, for proof, for control. This kind of
      intellectual perception is not readily accessible to the free man.
      Freedom is not an intellectually evolved concept; in fact, it is
      biologically evolved down an uninterrupted vector of normal human
      development. That a free man exists at all seems to argue: that those
      who envy freedom, those who attempt to conceptualize it as something
      other than human existence; are destined to be castoffs of evolution
      in progress, or seek genetic re-engineering; to have any actual hope
      of ever being free. Perhaps these promises of bodily resurrection and
      heavenly bliss were directed at those who envy freedom; perhaps they
      were even made by a compassionate free man once (though it seems
      unlikely); or perhaps they are not promises at all, but only the
      poignant genetic facts; still considering the fact that evolution
      involves an awful lot of the stuff of the cosmos, and an awful lot of
      the motion of the cosmos, I'd be just a little nervous about deciding
      that something needs to be liberated from its evolved nature -
      "Jurassic Park" comes to mind.

      The free man does not need to be saved; indeed, he has lost any way of
      ever finding nothingness; as for the rest - they are whatever they are
      for their now, but always utterly qualified in existence by an
      evolution that has presented freedom in individuals of the human
      species on this planet in this cosmos. I know Dan Dennett thinks
      poorly of Sartre's existentialism on certain points; but as a matter
      of fact I disagree with his assessment. In the end, in the objective
      result, in the facticity, the scientific view can only ever "preach"
      to the prisoners. Technology and science may find the way to unlock a
      genetic cell door to human freedom; but in doing so a clear wide well
      recorded path to nothingness will be established for those liberated
      and those liberating. Perhaps, as Dan and others would argue, it is
      the evolved human destiny to do so - to facilitate and control its own
      freedom; but in many ways this view is too narrow, too isolated, too
      tiny, too introspective, too religious, to adequately account for the
      roar of evolution in the cosmos. The free man attempts "liberation"
      toward others only to find other free people; as he knows that
      evolution ends in silence only in the conversation that doesn't.


      dirty hands and all
      Trinidad Cruz
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.