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

Re: [existlist] Re: authenticity

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    TC, You re right. I am stretched for time. What was the Schleirmacher remark? I couldn t find it. Also, I am not understanding the Sahakian term. Sorry, Wil
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      TC,

      You're right. I am stretched for time. What was the Schleirmacher
      remark? I couldn't find it.

      Also, I am not understanding the "Sahakian" term.

      Sorry,

      Wil


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Trinidad Cruz <TriniCruz@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:52 am
      Subject: [existlist] Re: authenticity























      Wil, I think it's Sahakian.



      On another note I'm surprised you didn't jump on me about

      Schleirmacher. You must be busy.



      tc



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

      >

      > I am sorry, HB, but there are so many issues in your post that I

      just cannot

      > find enough time or patience to comment on all of it. You seem to

      confuse the

      > projects of the Phenomenology and the Logic (the first, I am

      guessing?) to

      > have Hegel saying all kinds of things. The stuff about "ground" is
      very

      > confusing. What exactly are you imputing to Hegel and what is your

      own position? Do you

      > think that sense perception is "the ground" (sic), or are you saying

      that

      > Hegel thinks so? What do you mean by ground, then? The ground of

      what? Knowledge,

      > being, existence?

      >

      > The first chunk of Phenomenology is devoted precisely to this

      matter. Have

      > you reviewed it?

      >

      > I have already commenrted on the Hegel quote.

      >

      > The rest of your 'lecture' is ... well. Please do not feel that you

      have to

      > remind me of what, say, Berkeley was all about. Especially as your

      blurb on him

      > makes it clear that your depth of understanding is not much deeper

      than a

      > Wikopedia listing. You can think whatever you want to, but before

      you start

      > wagging a finger at me or anyone else here, please know what you are

      talking about

      > -- and that means something more than a Cliff's Notes summation.

      >

      > Wil

      >

      > In a message dated 6/27/07 3:07:36 AM, hb3g@... writes:

      >

      >

      > >

      > > I don't quite know what to make of a couple of things. First of all,

      > > the night where all the cows are black idea was Hegel's own

      > > characterization of the identity philosophy that was promulgated by

      > > Fichte and Schelling. This has nothing to do with nihilism; at
      least,

      > > not directly. It is actually a kind of foundationalism, similar to

      > > that which has been attributed Descartes, although, I think this is

      > > an unfair accusation against Descartes. Spinoza, much more so than

      > > Descartes, would be guilty of such a foundationalism, the belief
      that

      > > all truths, including the empirical ones, can be rationally deduced

      > > from a single underlying truth. Descartes' cogito ergo sum is not

      > > such a foundation, it is, rather, a paradigmatic insight that he

      > > could have utilized as an effective prototype for an intuitionist

      > > theory of truth, but he failed to follow this up very far and

      > > resorted to an occasionalism for his guarantee that what is

      > > represented inside corresponds to what is really there outside. Now

      > > we know that the representation *is* what is outside, as well as
      what

      > > is inside.

      > >

      > > The whole point to Hegel's remark about the identity philosophy is

      > > this: that pure identity cannot be the logical starting point,

      > > because, in the thought of pure identity, a difference, a

      > > distinction, is already thought there. I have an identity. But, the

      > > whole point to stating this is, in fact, that it is what sets me

      > > apart from everybody else, what is unique about me, the diffeence,

      > > that is already contained in my consciousness of my identity.

      > > Thinking the identity is therefore inseparable from thinking the

      > > difference. Hegel overstates this by saying everything is

      > > contradiction, which is, for sure, a linguistic if not a logical

      > > blunder. Everything is not contradiction. Only thoughts can be

      > > contradictions. But, certainly, everything is in opposition to

      > > something else, and is constituted of opposing forces or tendencies.

      > > Take a look at Kant's "Metaphysical Foundation for the Natural

      > > Sciences" for a cogent analysis of the nature of matter as a tension

      > > between the two opposing forces of attraction and impermeability.

      > >

      > > I think it is more accurate to say, with regard to Hegel, not that

      > > all cows are black, but that pigs can fly, which of course they

      > > cannot. What I have in mind is this: that concepts can mysteriously

      > > develop themsslves, or, thoughts themselves can think, which is

      > > pretty absurd when you come right down to it.

      > >

      > > The real problem that I see in Hegel, and that Schopenhauer has seen

      > > in Hegel, and pulls no punches about it when he mentions it, is that

      > > there is a fundamental confusion in Hegel wherein the ground and the

      > > consequent of rationality itself have been inverted. The ground is

      > > ultimately sense perception and concrete experience in general. The

      > > consequent is pure reflective thinking. Hegel's inverted world is a

      > > world wherein sense perception and concrete experience, so we are
      led

      > > to believe, are a necessary deduction from the pure thought itself.

      > >

      > > Hegel isn't exactly honest, here, about his beginning. He calls it

      > > being, and, of course, it makes perfect sense for him to say that

      > > this being is nothing because this being is, in fact, nothing other

      > > than the pure abstract concept. Of course, Hegel would want us to

      > > believe that this pure abstract concept is somehow a real thing

      > > capable of generating out of itself, ex nihilo, concrete reality,

      > > which, in the end, must measure up to this concept through some kind

      > > of dialectical development of that concept into a system of

      > > categories that ultimately produces, presto! Bingo! Reality!

      > >

      > > But Hegel deliberately obfuscates, and he confuses us by disguising

      > > this abstract concept, which can only be a product of his own mind,

      > > as this pretty amazing being thing (it is actually God, Spirit, the

      > > creator, or, to call a spade a spade, the invader from outer space

      > > and outer time, the irrational transcendent) and outer time, the
      irrat

      > > us to think that he is talking about something real. But, if it was

      > > real, he certainly could not call it nothing now could he?

      > >

      > > Just look at this being thing that Hegel sets up as his beginning.

      > > First of all, it is indeterminate. That makes sense. By its very

      > > nature, the concept of being, because it is the most general concept

      > > that there is, subsumes everything else under it, but, on the other

      > > hand, it completely empty, it contains nothing that is concrete

      > > because it is the ultimate abstraction; therefore, it really is

      > > nothing.

      > >

      > > Next, Hegel tell us that this indeterminte being thing which is

      > > nothing is also immediate. Say what? How can anything that is
      nothing

      > > be immediate? Hegel is just playing with abstract concepts here.

      > > This being thing is just a concept. Since it is, by universal

      > > acclamation, the most universal of concepts, it is the most mediated

      > > of all things that we can possibly think, and it is the emptiest

      > > concept that we can think. It is the representation of the

      > > representation, of the representation. representation, of the r

      > > infinity, to the totality, which is a nothing for us, which is alien

      > > to us; thus, it is, as I say, our image of invasion from an

      > > irrational ground beyond space and time. Later on, with Heidegger,
      it

      > > becomes this dangerous being thing, the inexplicable occurrence of

      > > the holocaust that, kind of, sort of, just happened by accident.

      > > Oops! Didn't mean it. Being meant it. There ought to be a law
      against

      > > genocides like that. But what difference would it make?

      > >

      > > To say that being is immediate is a contradictio in adjectivo.

      > > Period. No amount of exhortation to think in terms of some supposed

      > > fundamental law of the contradiction that is inherent in all things

      > > will ever eradicate the basic absurdity from which Hegel proposes to

      > > build an entire metaphysical system.

      > >

      > > What is really nihilistic about the Hegelina philosophy is what is

      > > never explicitly stated. In order to become a Hegelian, one must

      > > annihilate the thinker inside of oneself and give thinking over

      > > entirely to this mysterious spirit thing that somehow tells the
      truth

      > > by contradictiong itself. But, the only way that the thinker can be

      > > annihilated is to give up the will that is the driving force behind

      > > the thinker's thinking. There is a word for this. It is called

      > > totalitarianism, and that certainly is a nihilism, in that its
      result

      > > is a kind of metaphysical suicide.

      > >

      > > But there is another kind of nihilism, present in Schopenhauer, and
      I

      > > suspect, also in Nietzsche, which is really all about the

      > > renunciation of the world illusion that the thinker mediates unto

      > > itself in and through its thinking that gone wild in the world in

      > > abstraction, within abstraction. The basic mistake that we almost

      > > inevitably make, with regard to thinking, is that we identify

      > > ourselves with our thinking, and we forget that thinking is

      > > fundamentally just the highest and most sophisticated strategy for

      > > being in the world that we employ just for the sake of our survival,

      > > our continuation. When we deify our thinking, which is basically
      just

      > > our instrumentality, we forget our will, and in so doing, we end up

      > > worshipping, as our god, what is really only our instrument. It
      would

      > > be like a carpenter praying to his hammer. We are not our minds. We

      > > have our minds. That is why it is possible for us to lose our minds.

      > > But we can never lose our will.

      > >

      > > As for Berkeley, I have read Berkeley's "Three Dialogues Between

      > > Hylas and Philonous." Berkeley, like Descartes, is another one of

      > > those philosophers who has become the target of grotesque

      > > caricaturization that, in no way, resembles the real substance of
      his

      > > thinking. Berkeley represents a critical step in the development of

      > > the idealistic standpoint that began with Descartes, and proceeded
      to

      > > take shape through Malebranche, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, and Kant. All

      > > of these thinkers were grappling, in some fashion or another, with

      > > the radically dualistic nature of concrete experience. None of them

      > > really believed that dualism, per se, could be a defensible

      > > metaphysical position to take, and none of them, most especially

      > > Berkeley, denied the reality of what we experience. These men were
      no

      > > sophomores. We should give them credit for having a mind with which

      > > to think. Berkeley pointed out, to the contrary, not that what we

      > > perceive is an illusion, but that there is something deeply wrong

      > > with the way in which we habitually conceive of what it is that we

      > > perceive, namely, this concept of substance, which has been taken
      for

      > > granted for a very long time.

      > >

      > > The illusory nature of what it is that we perceive, and, ultimately,

      > > of all of our experience, only comes fully into the light much
      later,

      > > and, I think, it is Schopenhauer who really brings this home to us.

      > > But, in arriving at this undersanding that our experience really is

      > > fundamentally an illusion, all that is really meant by this is that

      > > our experience is relative to a necessarily one-sided point of view.

      > >

      > > I thrust the stick into the clear water and it appears to be bent,

      > > but I know that it really isn't. This illusory appearance is no

      > > hallucination. There is an explanation for it. But the explanation

      > > involves a deeper understanding of the nature of light, how light

      > > propagates, how geometry can be used to describe the propagation of

      > > light, and the ultimate insight that for all physical materials
      there

      > > is such a thing as an index of refraction for the propagation of

      > > light through that material.

      > >

      > > All of a sudden, this illusion has led to some pretty deep insights

      > > into the inner workings of physical existence, things that we do not

      > > directly perceive, nor do we understand them clearly at first, but,

      > > in no way, has this deeper insight prevented the illusion from still

      > > happening. We see only a part of the reality that is there. We have

      > > to infer the rest. Reality is deep phenomenality. There is nothing

      > > really mysterious about this fact, but it leads to some important,

      > > and rather astonishing, metaphysical conclusions that are, moerover,

      > > more than adequately backed up by our current scientific

      > > understanding of the inner workings physical existence, to the
      extent

      > > that we know it so far.

      > >

      > > In my opinion, The only valid metaphysics must satisfy at least
      these

      > > two criteria:

      > >

      > > First of all, it must be radically empirical, that is, it must take

      > > the concrete experience as its ultimate starting point. The
      Cartesian

      > > insight is simply the recognition that concrete experience falls
      into

      > > two broad classifications, what is outside, and what is inside, what

      > > is physically existing, and what is also psychologically existing.

      > > The Cartesian standpoint is a necessary starting over again. It is

      > > not, however, the radical starting point. It was experience that led

      > > to doubt, that led to the Cartesian insight, that led to the new

      > > beginning for the metaphysical reflection. In moving onward from
      that

      > > new beginning, if the metaphysicist now totally disregards the

      > > empirical context that led him up to that need to start over, his

      > > metaphysical thinking becomes detached from anything empirical,

      > > concrete, and experiential, and it becomes mental masturbation, the

      > > autoeroticism of a thinking that has only thought itself, which is

      > > impossible anyway, because it is is thinkers that think, not thought

      > > itself.

      > >

      > > Secondly, metaphysics must bring its interpretative results all the

      > > way back to the original concrete experience, either in its outer

      > > physical form, or in its relatively recently recognized inner

      > > psychological form. The metaphysicist must, in this sense,
      ultimately

      > > employ an experimental method, just like what is done in science. If

      > > the results are irreproducible, if they cannot be exhibited in the

      > > concrete experience, if some other thinker cannot also think this

      > > thought coherently, then we have more than sufficient reason to
      doubt

      > > the veracity of the purported results.

      > >

      > > The only other thing I might add is that what is characteristic of

      > > metaphysics is that it is interpretation. Science is basically

      > > curiosity in action, with an added practical benefit, namely,

      > > technology. Science seeks to know and to understand, and, when it

      > > goes deeply enough, it ends up becoming metaphysical because it

      > > reaches the point where interpretation, more so than knowing or

      > > understanding, becomes the main theoretical issue. Beyond just

      > > knowing, or understanding, there is such a thing as insight. This

      > > interpretative realm is the metaphysical, and it is necessarily

      > > speculative.

      > >

      > > As for theology, well, I think it is high time that it be shown the

      > > door, because, for the life of me, I cannot really figure out how

      > > theology can neatly fit into any of these categories of thought.

      > > Faith is just a euphemism for pressing the "I believe" button as far

      > > as I am concerned. Yeah, Hegel inspired me for a while. But that was

      > > because he was addressing the deep seated psychological need that we

      > > all have to feel like we are connected with a deeper meaning to

      > > things. Besides, Hegel plays quite cleverly on the philosophical

      > > wonder, the astonishment, that is the root experience out of which

      > > metaphysics naturally flows; but he hijacks it for orthodox

      > > theological designs. His philosophy of spirit is entirely
      misleading.

      > > It does not produce the result that it promises, namely, the truth.

      > >

      > > The probelm here, I think, is that we can forget that our need for

      > > insight, not blind faith, not mere belief, not orthodoxy, is the
      real

      > > motive force that is driving us toward truth. We always know when we

      > > get more truth. It comes to us as insight. But, it always seems to
      be

      > > tha case that this more truth that we get, the insight, is itself

      > > inexplicable, baffling, and so it leads beyond itself to yet deeper

      > > insights.

      > >

      > > Case in point: quantum tunneling. The fundamental particle literally

      > > disappears from here and reappears over there, instantaneously. Now,

      > > either the theory is wrong, because we know that there cannot be

      > > movement from one place to another in space without time duration,
      or

      > > else, space-time itself is not what we think it is. There is

      > > something hidden there that we do not directly observe, hidden

      > > structure, inner articulation, and, in fact, space-time itself is

      > > probably an articulated manifold that has deep structure.

      > >

      > > Case in point: the Big Bang. Reliable observation and good theory
      has

      > > led us to the conclusion that this universe is expanding in every

      > > direction. Ergo, it had a beginning about fifteen billion years ago.

      > > But this cannot be the beginning of time, because, a beginning of

      > > time is a contradiction. The concept of beginning only makes sense
      if

      > > there already is time. Hence, the Big Bang cannot be the beginning
      of

      > > time. But, unless some radical new fact comes to light, there

      > > certainly was a beginning of the universe. But this is also a

      > > contradcition, because, by univrese, we really mean being, the

      > > totality, all that there is, ever was, and ever will be. To exist
      out

      > > of nothing is impossible. Hence, either this theory is wrong, or,

      > > this is not the only universe, in which case, there is a whole lot

      > > more to the really real universe than what we happen to be existing

      > > in right now and have ths far taken to be *the* universe. The

      > > universe, it turns out, might in fact be one of many, perhaps one of

      > > an infinite number of universes in a multiverse. Maybe these other

      > > universes which, more and more, physicists believe probably do
      exist,

      > > is where the matter inside of the event horizon of the black hole

      > > goes. Stephen Hwakings has been working for a number of years on a

      > > cosmological model based upon what we can infer, quite cleverly what

      > > might be happening inside of the interior of the black hole, and he

      > > has developed the hypothesis that what we see in the history of our

      > > universe may be just like what is going on inside of the event

      > > horizon of the black hole. It could be that every black hole is, on

      > > that inner side of its event horizon, a Big Bang that is the

      > > beginning of another universe.

      > >

      > > Hb3g

      > >

      > >

      > >

      >

      >

      >

      >

      > **************************************

      > See what's free at http://www.aol.com

      >

      >

      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      >






















      ________________________________________________________________________
      AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
      from AOL at AOL.com.
      =0
    • Trinidad Cruz
      Sahakian, Harvard. Had a philosophy summary like Oxford companion, back in the 60 s History of Western Philosophy or something like that. I didn t mention
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Sahakian, Harvard. Had a philosophy summary like Oxford companion,
        back in the 60's History of Western Philosophy or something like that.

        I didn't mention Schleiermacher. Just the whole idea of synthetic
        fact. I was developing it again toward the argument against Derrida
        and the later Heidegger. Sch. argued more or less that the process of
        knowing anything is meant to synthesize identity or a sense of
        self-facticity. Albeit like SK and Eckhart and later Tillich he
        equated the later discourse with God as higher than such activity
        though not possible without such activity. But to me, and more
        Sartrean is that God in this situation can just as easily be other or
        even all others. Anyway I have time issues too, but I think you get
        the drift anyway.

        tc

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        >
        > TC,
        >
        > You're right. I am stretched for time. What was the Schleirmacher
        > remark? I couldn't find it.
        >
        > Also, I am not understanding the "Sahakian" term.
        >
        > Sorry,
        >
        > Wil
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Trinidad Cruz <TriniCruz@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:52 am
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: authenticity
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Wil, I think it's Sahakian.
        >
        >
        >
        > On another note I'm surprised you didn't jump on me about
        >
        > Schleirmacher. You must be busy.
        >
        >
        >
        > tc
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        > > I am sorry, HB, but there are so many issues in your post that I
        >
        > just cannot
        >
        > > find enough time or patience to comment on all of it. You seem to
        >
        > confuse the
        >
        > > projects of the Phenomenology and the Logic (the first, I am
        >
        > guessing?) to
        >
        > > have Hegel saying all kinds of things. The stuff about "ground" is
        > very
        >
        > > confusing. What exactly are you imputing to Hegel and what is your
        >
        > own position? Do you
        >
        > > think that sense perception is "the ground" (sic), or are you saying
        >
        > that
        >
        > > Hegel thinks so? What do you mean by ground, then? The ground of
        >
        > what? Knowledge,
        >
        > > being, existence?
        >
        > >
        >
        > > The first chunk of Phenomenology is devoted precisely to this
        >
        > matter. Have
        >
        > > you reviewed it?
        >
        > >
        >
        > > I have already commenrted on the Hegel quote.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > The rest of your 'lecture' is ... well. Please do not feel that you
        >
        > have to
        >
        > > remind me of what, say, Berkeley was all about. Especially as your
        >
        > blurb on him
        >
        > > makes it clear that your depth of understanding is not much deeper
        >
        > than a
        >
        > > Wikopedia listing. You can think whatever you want to, but before
        >
        > you start
        >
        > > wagging a finger at me or anyone else here, please know what you are
        >
        > talking about
        >
        > > -- and that means something more than a Cliff's Notes summation.
        >
        > >
        >
        > > Wil
        >
        > >
        >
        > > In a message dated 6/27/07 3:07:36 AM, hb3g@ writes:
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > I don't quite know what to make of a couple of things. First of all,
        >
        > > > the night where all the cows are black idea was Hegel's own
        >
        > > > characterization of the identity philosophy that was promulgated by
        >
        > > > Fichte and Schelling. This has nothing to do with nihilism; at
        > least,
        >
        > > > not directly. It is actually a kind of foundationalism, similar to
        >
        > > > that which has been attributed Descartes, although, I think this is
        >
        > > > an unfair accusation against Descartes. Spinoza, much more so than
        >
        > > > Descartes, would be guilty of such a foundationalism, the belief
        > that
        >
        > > > all truths, including the empirical ones, can be rationally deduced
        >
        > > > from a single underlying truth. Descartes' cogito ergo sum is not
        >
        > > > such a foundation, it is, rather, a paradigmatic insight that he
        >
        > > > could have utilized as an effective prototype for an intuitionist
        >
        > > > theory of truth, but he failed to follow this up very far and
        >
        > > > resorted to an occasionalism for his guarantee that what is
        >
        > > > represented inside corresponds to what is really there outside. Now
        >
        > > > we know that the representation *is* what is outside, as well as
        > what
        >
        > > > is inside.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > The whole point to Hegel's remark about the identity philosophy is
        >
        > > > this: that pure identity cannot be the logical starting point,
        >
        > > > because, in the thought of pure identity, a difference, a
        >
        > > > distinction, is already thought there. I have an identity. But, the
        >
        > > > whole point to stating this is, in fact, that it is what sets me
        >
        > > > apart from everybody else, what is unique about me, the diffeence,
        >
        > > > that is already contained in my consciousness of my identity.
        >
        > > > Thinking the identity is therefore inseparable from thinking the
        >
        > > > difference. Hegel overstates this by saying everything is
        >
        > > > contradiction, which is, for sure, a linguistic if not a logical
        >
        > > > blunder. Everything is not contradiction. Only thoughts can be
        >
        > > > contradictions. But, certainly, everything is in opposition to
        >
        > > > something else, and is constituted of opposing forces or tendencies.
        >
        > > > Take a look at Kant's "Metaphysical Foundation for the Natural
        >
        > > > Sciences" for a cogent analysis of the nature of matter as a tension
        >
        > > > between the two opposing forces of attraction and impermeability.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > I think it is more accurate to say, with regard to Hegel, not that
        >
        > > > all cows are black, but that pigs can fly, which of course they
        >
        > > > cannot. What I have in mind is this: that concepts can mysteriously
        >
        > > > develop themsslves, or, thoughts themselves can think, which is
        >
        > > > pretty absurd when you come right down to it.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > The real problem that I see in Hegel, and that Schopenhauer has seen
        >
        > > > in Hegel, and pulls no punches about it when he mentions it, is that
        >
        > > > there is a fundamental confusion in Hegel wherein the ground and the
        >
        > > > consequent of rationality itself have been inverted. The ground is
        >
        > > > ultimately sense perception and concrete experience in general. The
        >
        > > > consequent is pure reflective thinking. Hegel's inverted world is a
        >
        > > > world wherein sense perception and concrete experience, so we are
        > led
        >
        > > > to believe, are a necessary deduction from the pure thought itself.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > Hegel isn't exactly honest, here, about his beginning. He calls it
        >
        > > > being, and, of course, it makes perfect sense for him to say that
        >
        > > > this being is nothing because this being is, in fact, nothing other
        >
        > > > than the pure abstract concept. Of course, Hegel would want us to
        >
        > > > believe that this pure abstract concept is somehow a real thing
        >
        > > > capable of generating out of itself, ex nihilo, concrete reality,
        >
        > > > which, in the end, must measure up to this concept through some kind
        >
        > > > of dialectical development of that concept into a system of
        >
        > > > categories that ultimately produces, presto! Bingo! Reality!
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > But Hegel deliberately obfuscates, and he confuses us by disguising
        >
        > > > this abstract concept, which can only be a product of his own mind,
        >
        > > > as this pretty amazing being thing (it is actually God, Spirit, the
        >
        > > > creator, or, to call a spade a spade, the invader from outer space
        >
        > > > and outer time, the irrational transcendent) and outer time, the
        > irrat
        >
        > > > us to think that he is talking about something real. But, if it was
        >
        > > > real, he certainly could not call it nothing now could he?
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > Just look at this being thing that Hegel sets up as his beginning.
        >
        > > > First of all, it is indeterminate. That makes sense. By its very
        >
        > > > nature, the concept of being, because it is the most general concept
        >
        > > > that there is, subsumes everything else under it, but, on the other
        >
        > > > hand, it completely empty, it contains nothing that is concrete
        >
        > > > because it is the ultimate abstraction; therefore, it really is
        >
        > > > nothing.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > Next, Hegel tell us that this indeterminte being thing which is
        >
        > > > nothing is also immediate. Say what? How can anything that is
        > nothing
        >
        > > > be immediate? Hegel is just playing with abstract concepts here.
        >
        > > > This being thing is just a concept. Since it is, by universal
        >
        > > > acclamation, the most universal of concepts, it is the most mediated
        >
        > > > of all things that we can possibly think, and it is the emptiest
        >
        > > > concept that we can think. It is the representation of the
        >
        > > > representation, of the representation. representation, of the r
        >
        > > > infinity, to the totality, which is a nothing for us, which is alien
        >
        > > > to us; thus, it is, as I say, our image of invasion from an
        >
        > > > irrational ground beyond space and time. Later on, with Heidegger,
        > it
        >
        > > > becomes this dangerous being thing, the inexplicable occurrence of
        >
        > > > the holocaust that, kind of, sort of, just happened by accident.
        >
        > > > Oops! Didn't mean it. Being meant it. There ought to be a law
        > against
        >
        > > > genocides like that. But what difference would it make?
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > To say that being is immediate is a contradictio in adjectivo.
        >
        > > > Period. No amount of exhortation to think in terms of some supposed
        >
        > > > fundamental law of the contradiction that is inherent in all things
        >
        > > > will ever eradicate the basic absurdity from which Hegel proposes to
        >
        > > > build an entire metaphysical system.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > What is really nihilistic about the Hegelina philosophy is what is
        >
        > > > never explicitly stated. In order to become a Hegelian, one must
        >
        > > > annihilate the thinker inside of oneself and give thinking over
        >
        > > > entirely to this mysterious spirit thing that somehow tells the
        > truth
        >
        > > > by contradictiong itself. But, the only way that the thinker can be
        >
        > > > annihilated is to give up the will that is the driving force behind
        >
        > > > the thinker's thinking. There is a word for this. It is called
        >
        > > > totalitarianism, and that certainly is a nihilism, in that its
        > result
        >
        > > > is a kind of metaphysical suicide.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > But there is another kind of nihilism, present in Schopenhauer, and
        > I
        >
        > > > suspect, also in Nietzsche, which is really all about the
        >
        > > > renunciation of the world illusion that the thinker mediates unto
        >
        > > > itself in and through its thinking that gone wild in the world in
        >
        > > > abstraction, within abstraction. The basic mistake that we almost
        >
        > > > inevitably make, with regard to thinking, is that we identify
        >
        > > > ourselves with our thinking, and we forget that thinking is
        >
        > > > fundamentally just the highest and most sophisticated strategy for
        >
        > > > being in the world that we employ just for the sake of our survival,
        >
        > > > our continuation. When we deify our thinking, which is basically
        > just
        >
        > > > our instrumentality, we forget our will, and in so doing, we end up
        >
        > > > worshipping, as our god, what is really only our instrument. It
        > would
        >
        > > > be like a carpenter praying to his hammer. We are not our minds. We
        >
        > > > have our minds. That is why it is possible for us to lose our minds.
        >
        > > > But we can never lose our will.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > As for Berkeley, I have read Berkeley's "Three Dialogues Between
        >
        > > > Hylas and Philonous." Berkeley, like Descartes, is another one of
        >
        > > > those philosophers who has become the target of grotesque
        >
        > > > caricaturization that, in no way, resembles the real substance of
        > his
        >
        > > > thinking. Berkeley represents a critical step in the development of
        >
        > > > the idealistic standpoint that began with Descartes, and proceeded
        > to
        >
        > > > take shape through Malebranche, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, and Kant. All
        >
        > > > of these thinkers were grappling, in some fashion or another, with
        >
        > > > the radically dualistic nature of concrete experience. None of them
        >
        > > > really believed that dualism, per se, could be a defensible
        >
        > > > metaphysical position to take, and none of them, most especially
        >
        > > > Berkeley, denied the reality of what we experience. These men were
        > no
        >
        > > > sophomores. We should give them credit for having a mind with which
        >
        > > > to think. Berkeley pointed out, to the contrary, not that what we
        >
        > > > perceive is an illusion, but that there is something deeply wrong
        >
        > > > with the way in which we habitually conceive of what it is that we
        >
        > > > perceive, namely, this concept of substance, which has been taken
        > for
        >
        > > > granted for a very long time.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > The illusory nature of what it is that we perceive, and, ultimately,
        >
        > > > of all of our experience, only comes fully into the light much
        > later,
        >
        > > > and, I think, it is Schopenhauer who really brings this home to us.
        >
        > > > But, in arriving at this undersanding that our experience really is
        >
        > > > fundamentally an illusion, all that is really meant by this is that
        >
        > > > our experience is relative to a necessarily one-sided point of view.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > I thrust the stick into the clear water and it appears to be bent,
        >
        > > > but I know that it really isn't. This illusory appearance is no
        >
        > > > hallucination. There is an explanation for it. But the explanation
        >
        > > > involves a deeper understanding of the nature of light, how light
        >
        > > > propagates, how geometry can be used to describe the propagation of
        >
        > > > light, and the ultimate insight that for all physical materials
        > there
        >
        > > > is such a thing as an index of refraction for the propagation of
        >
        > > > light through that material.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > All of a sudden, this illusion has led to some pretty deep insights
        >
        > > > into the inner workings of physical existence, things that we do not
        >
        > > > directly perceive, nor do we understand them clearly at first, but,
        >
        > > > in no way, has this deeper insight prevented the illusion from still
        >
        > > > happening. We see only a part of the reality that is there. We have
        >
        > > > to infer the rest. Reality is deep phenomenality. There is nothing
        >
        > > > really mysterious about this fact, but it leads to some important,
        >
        > > > and rather astonishing, metaphysical conclusions that are, moerover,
        >
        > > > more than adequately backed up by our current scientific
        >
        > > > understanding of the inner workings physical existence, to the
        > extent
        >
        > > > that we know it so far.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > In my opinion, The only valid metaphysics must satisfy at least
        > these
        >
        > > > two criteria:
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > First of all, it must be radically empirical, that is, it must take
        >
        > > > the concrete experience as its ultimate starting point. The
        > Cartesian
        >
        > > > insight is simply the recognition that concrete experience falls
        > into
        >
        > > > two broad classifications, what is outside, and what is inside, what
        >
        > > > is physically existing, and what is also psychologically existing.
        >
        > > > The Cartesian standpoint is a necessary starting over again. It is
        >
        > > > not, however, the radical starting point. It was experience that led
        >
        > > > to doubt, that led to the Cartesian insight, that led to the new
        >
        > > > beginning for the metaphysical reflection. In moving onward from
        > that
        >
        > > > new beginning, if the metaphysicist now totally disregards the
        >
        > > > empirical context that led him up to that need to start over, his
        >
        > > > metaphysical thinking becomes detached from anything empirical,
        >
        > > > concrete, and experiential, and it becomes mental masturbation, the
        >
        > > > autoeroticism of a thinking that has only thought itself, which is
        >
        > > > impossible anyway, because it is is thinkers that think, not thought
        >
        > > > itself.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > Secondly, metaphysics must bring its interpretative results all the
        >
        > > > way back to the original concrete experience, either in its outer
        >
        > > > physical form, or in its relatively recently recognized inner
        >
        > > > psychological form. The metaphysicist must, in this sense,
        > ultimately
        >
        > > > employ an experimental method, just like what is done in science. If
        >
        > > > the results are irreproducible, if they cannot be exhibited in the
        >
        > > > concrete experience, if some other thinker cannot also think this
        >
        > > > thought coherently, then we have more than sufficient reason to
        > doubt
        >
        > > > the veracity of the purported results.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > The only other thing I might add is that what is characteristic of
        >
        > > > metaphysics is that it is interpretation. Science is basically
        >
        > > > curiosity in action, with an added practical benefit, namely,
        >
        > > > technology. Science seeks to know and to understand, and, when it
        >
        > > > goes deeply enough, it ends up becoming metaphysical because it
        >
        > > > reaches the point where interpretation, more so than knowing or
        >
        > > > understanding, becomes the main theoretical issue. Beyond just
        >
        > > > knowing, or understanding, there is such a thing as insight. This
        >
        > > > interpretative realm is the metaphysical, and it is necessarily
        >
        > > > speculative.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > As for theology, well, I think it is high time that it be shown the
        >
        > > > door, because, for the life of me, I cannot really figure out how
        >
        > > > theology can neatly fit into any of these categories of thought.
        >
        > > > Faith is just a euphemism for pressing the "I believe" button as far
        >
        > > > as I am concerned. Yeah, Hegel inspired me for a while. But that was
        >
        > > > because he was addressing the deep seated psychological need that we
        >
        > > > all have to feel like we are connected with a deeper meaning to
        >
        > > > things. Besides, Hegel plays quite cleverly on the philosophical
        >
        > > > wonder, the astonishment, that is the root experience out of which
        >
        > > > metaphysics naturally flows; but he hijacks it for orthodox
        >
        > > > theological designs. His philosophy of spirit is entirely
        > misleading.
        >
        > > > It does not produce the result that it promises, namely, the truth.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > The probelm here, I think, is that we can forget that our need for
        >
        > > > insight, not blind faith, not mere belief, not orthodoxy, is the
        > real
        >
        > > > motive force that is driving us toward truth. We always know when we
        >
        > > > get more truth. It comes to us as insight. But, it always seems to
        > be
        >
        > > > tha case that this more truth that we get, the insight, is itself
        >
        > > > inexplicable, baffling, and so it leads beyond itself to yet deeper
        >
        > > > insights.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > Case in point: quantum tunneling. The fundamental particle literally
        >
        > > > disappears from here and reappears over there, instantaneously. Now,
        >
        > > > either the theory is wrong, because we know that there cannot be
        >
        > > > movement from one place to another in space without time duration,
        > or
        >
        > > > else, space-time itself is not what we think it is. There is
        >
        > > > something hidden there that we do not directly observe, hidden
        >
        > > > structure, inner articulation, and, in fact, space-time itself is
        >
        > > > probably an articulated manifold that has deep structure.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > Case in point: the Big Bang. Reliable observation and good theory
        > has
        >
        > > > led us to the conclusion that this universe is expanding in every
        >
        > > > direction. Ergo, it had a beginning about fifteen billion years ago.
        >
        > > > But this cannot be the beginning of time, because, a beginning of
        >
        > > > time is a contradiction. The concept of beginning only makes sense
        > if
        >
        > > > there already is time. Hence, the Big Bang cannot be the beginning
        > of
        >
        > > > time. But, unless some radical new fact comes to light, there
        >
        > > > certainly was a beginning of the universe. But this is also a
        >
        > > > contradcition, because, by univrese, we really mean being, the
        >
        > > > totality, all that there is, ever was, and ever will be. To exist
        > out
        >
        > > > of nothing is impossible. Hence, either this theory is wrong, or,
        >
        > > > this is not the only universe, in which case, there is a whole lot
        >
        > > > more to the really real universe than what we happen to be existing
        >
        > > > in right now and have ths far taken to be *the* universe. The
        >
        > > > universe, it turns out, might in fact be one of many, perhaps one of
        >
        > > > an infinite number of universes in a multiverse. Maybe these other
        >
        > > > universes which, more and more, physicists believe probably do
        > exist,
        >
        > > > is where the matter inside of the event horizon of the black hole
        >
        > > > goes. Stephen Hwakings has been working for a number of years on a
        >
        > > > cosmological model based upon what we can infer, quite cleverly what
        >
        > > > might be happening inside of the interior of the black hole, and he
        >
        > > > has developed the hypothesis that what we see in the history of our
        >
        > > > universe may be just like what is going on inside of the event
        >
        > > > horizon of the black hole. It could be that every black hole is, on
        >
        > > > that inner side of its event horizon, a Big Bang that is the
        >
        > > > beginning of another universe.
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > > Hb3g
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > **************************************
        >
        > > See what's free at http://www.aol.com
        >
        > >
        >
        > >
        >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________________________________________________
        > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
        > from AOL at AOL.com.
        > =0
        >
      • eupraxis@aol.com
        Gotcha. Thanks. Wil ... From: Trinidad Cruz To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 12:51 pm Subject: [existlist] Re:
        Message 3 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Gotcha. Thanks.

          Wil


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Trinidad Cruz <TriniCruz@...>
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 12:51 pm
          Subject: [existlist] Re: authenticity























          Sahakian, Harvard. Had a philosophy summary like Oxford
          companion,

          back in the 60's History of Western Philosophy or something like that.



          I didn't mention Schleiermacher. Just the whole idea of synthetic

          fact. I was developing it again toward the argument against Derrida

          and the later Heidegger. Sch. argued more or less that the process of

          knowing anything is meant to synthesize identity or a sense of

          self-facticity. Albeit like SK and Eckhart and later Tillich he

          equated the later discourse with God as higher than such activity

          though not possible without such activity. But to me, and more

          Sartrean is that God in this situation can just as easily be other or

          even all others. Anyway I have time issues too, but I think you get

          the drift anyway.



          tc



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

          >

          > TC,

          >

          > You're right. I am stretched for time. What was the Schleirmacher

          > remark? I couldn't find it.

          >

          > Also, I am not understanding the "Sahakian" term.

          >

          > Sorry,

          >

          > Wil

          >

          >

          > -----Original Message-----

          > From: Trinidad Cruz <TriniCruz@...>

          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

          > Sent: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:52 am

          > Subject: [existlist] Re: authenticity

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          > Wil, I think it's Sahakian.

          >

          >

          >

          > On another note I'm surprised you didn't jump on me about

          >

          > Schleirmacher. You must be busy.

          >

          >

          >

          > tc

          >

          >

          >

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

          >

          > >

          >

          > > I am sorry, HB, but there are so many issues in your post that I

          >

          > just cannot

          >

          > > find enough time or patience to comment on all of it. You seem to

          >

          > confuse the

          >

          > > projects of the Phenomenology and the Logic (the first, I am

          >

          > guessing?) to

          >

          > > have Hegel saying all kinds of things. The stuff about "ground" is

          > very

          >

          > > confusing. What exactly are you imputing to Hegel and what is your

          >

          > own position? Do you

          >

          > > think that sense perception is "the ground" (sic), or are you saying

          >

          > that

          >

          > > Hegel thinks so? What do you mean by ground, then? The ground of

          >

          > what? Knowledge,

          >

          > > being, existence?

          >

          > >

          >

          > > The first chunk of Phenomenology is devoted precisely to this

          >

          > matter. Have

          >

          > > you reviewed it?

          >

          > >

          >

          > > I have already commenrted on the Hegel quote.

          >

          > >

          >

          > > The rest of your 'lecture' is ... well. Please do not feel that you

          >

          > have to

          >

          > > remind me of what, say, Berkeley was all about. Especially as your

          >

          > blurb on him

          >

          > > makes it clear that your depth of understanding is not much deeper

          >

          > than a

          >

          > > Wikopedia listing. You can think whatever you want to, but before

          >

          > you start

          >

          > > wagging a finger at me or anyone else here, please know what you are

          >

          > talking about

          >

          > > -- and that means something more than a Cliff's Notes summation.

          >

          > >

          >

          > > Wil

          >

          > >

          >

          > > In a message dated 6/27/07 3:07:36 AM, hb3g@ writes:

          >

          > >

          >

          > >

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > I don't quite know what to make of a couple of things. First of
          all,

          >

          > > > the night where all the cows are black idea was Hegel's own

          >

          > > > characterization of the identity philosophy that was promulgated
          by

          >

          > > > Fichte and Schelling. This has nothing to do with nihilism; at

          > least,

          >

          > > > not directly. It is actually a kind of foundationalism, similar to

          >

          > > > that which has been attributed Descartes, although, I think this
          is

          >

          > > > an unfair accusation against Descartes. Spinoza, much more so than

          >

          > > > Descartes, would be guilty of such a foundationalism, the belief

          > that

          >

          > > > all truths, including the empirical ones, can be rationally
          deduced

          >

          > > > from a single underlying truth. Descartes' cogito ergo sum is not

          >

          > > > such a foundation, it is, rather, a paradigmatic insight that he

          >

          > > > could have utilized as an effective prototype for an intuitionist

          >

          > > > theory of truth, but he failed to follow this up very far and

          >

          > > > resorted to an occasionalism for his guarantee that what is

          >

          > > > represented inside corresponds to what is really there outside.
          Now

          >

          > > > we know that the representation *is* what is outside, as well as

          > what

          >

          > > > is inside.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > The whole point to Hegel's remark about the identity philosophy is

          >

          > > > this: that pure identity cannot be the logical starting point,

          >

          > > > because, in the thought of pure identity, a difference, a

          >

          > > > distinction, is already thought there. I have an identity. But,
          the

          >

          > > > whole point to stating this is, in fact, that it is what sets me

          >

          > > > apart from everybody else, what is unique about me, the diffeence,

          >

          > > > that is already contained in my consciousness of my identity.

          >

          > > > Thinking the identity is therefore inseparable from thinking the

          >

          > > > difference. Hegel overstates this by saying everything is

          >

          > > > contradiction, which is, for sure, a linguistic if not a logical

          >

          > > > blunder. Everything is not contradiction. Only thoughts can be

          >

          > > > contradictions. But, certainly, everything is in opposition to

          >

          > > > something else, and is constituted of opposing forces or
          tendencies.

          >

          > > > Take a look at Kant's "Metaphysical Foundation for the Natural

          >

          > > > Sciences" for a cogent analysis of the nature of matter as a
          tension

          >

          > > > between the two opposing forces of attraction and impermeability.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > I think it is more accurate to say, with regard to Hegel, not that

          >

          > > > all cows are black, but that pigs can fly, which of course they

          >

          > > > cannot. What I have in mind is this: that concepts can
          mysteriously

          >

          > > > develop themsslves, or, thoughts themselves can think, which is

          >

          > > > pretty absurd when you come right down to it.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > The real problem that I see in Hegel, and that Schopenhauer has
          seen

          >

          > > > in Hegel, and pulls no punches about it when he mentions it, is
          that

          >

          > > > there is a fundamental confusion in Hegel wherein the ground and
          the

          >

          > > > consequent of rationality itself have been inverted. The ground is

          >

          > > > ultimately sense perception and concrete experience in general.
          The

          >

          > > > consequent is pure reflective thinking. Hegel's inverted world is
          a

          >

          > > > world wherein sense perception and concrete experience, so we are

          > led

          >

          > > > to believe, are a necessary deduction from the pure thought
          itself.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > Hegel isn't exactly honest, here, about his beginning. He calls it

          >

          > > > being, and, of course, it makes perfect sense for him to say that

          >

          > > > this being is nothing because this being is, in fact, nothing
          other

          >

          > > > than the pure abstract concept. Of course, Hegel would want us to

          >

          > > > believe that this pure abstract concept is somehow a real thing

          >

          > > > capable of generating out of itself, ex nihilo, concrete reality,

          >

          > > > which, in the end, must measure up to this concept through some
          kind

          >

          > > > of dialectical development of that concept into a system of

          >

          > > > categories that ultimately produces, presto! Bingo! Reality!

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > But Hegel deliberately obfuscates, and he confuses us by
          disguising

          >

          > > > this abstract concept, which can only be a product of his own
          mind,

          >

          > > > as this pretty amazing being thing (it is actually God, Spirit,
          the

          >

          > > > creator, or, to call a spade a spade, the invader from outer space

          >

          > > > and outer time, the irrational transcendent) and outer time, the

          > irrat

          >

          > > > us to think that he is talking about something real. But, if it
          was

          >

          > > > real, he certainly could not call it nothing now could he?

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > Just look at this being thing that Hegel sets up as his beginning.

          >

          > > > First of all, it is indeterminate. That makes sense. By its very

          >

          > > > nature, the concept of being, because it is the most general
          concept

          >

          > > > that there is, subsumes everything else under it, but, on the
          other

          >

          > > > hand, it completely empty, it contains nothing that is concrete

          >

          > > > because it is the ultimate abstraction; therefore, it really is

          >

          > > > nothing.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > Next, Hegel tell us that this indeterminte being thing which is

          >

          > > > nothing is also immediate. Say what? How can anything that is

          > nothing

          >

          > > > be immediate? Hegel is just playing with abstract concepts here.

          >

          > > > This being thing is just a concept. Since it is, by universal

          >

          > > > acclamation, the most universal of concepts, it is the most
          mediated

          >

          > > > of all things that we can possibly think, and it is the emptiest

          >

          > > > concept that we can think. It is the representation of the

          >

          > > > representation, of the representation. representation, of the r

          >

          > > > infinity, to the totality, which is a nothing for us, which is
          alien

          >

          > > > to us; thus, it is, as I say, our image of invasion from an

          >

          > > > irrational ground beyond space and time. Later on, with
          Heidegger,

          > it

          >

          > > > becomes this dangerous being thing, the inexplicable occurrence of

          >

          > > > the holocaust that, kind of, sort of, just happened by accident.

          >

          > > > Oops! Didn't mean it. Being meant it. There ought to be a law

          > against

          >

          > > > genocides like that. But what difference would it make?

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > To say that being is immediate is a contradictio in adjectivo.

          >

          > > > Period. No amount of exhortation to think in terms of some
          supposed

          >

          > > > fundamental law of the contradiction that is inherent in all
          things

          >

          > > > will ever eradicate the basic absurdity from which Hegel proposes
          to

          >

          > > > build an entire metaphysical system.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > What is really nihilistic about the Hegelina philosophy is what is

          >

          > > > never explicitly stated. In order to become a Hegelian, one must

          >

          > > > annihilate the thinker inside of oneself and give thinking over

          >

          > > > entirely to this mysterious spirit thing that somehow tells the

          > truth

          >

          > > > by contradictiong itself. But, the only way that the thinker can
          be

          >

          > > > annihilated is to give up the will that is the driving force
          behind

          >

          > > > the thinker's thinking. There is a word for this. It is called

          >

          > > > totalitarianism, and that certainly is a nihilism, in that its

          > result

          >

          > > > is a kind of metaphysical suicide.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > But there is another kind of nihilism, present in Schopenhauer,
          and

          > I

          >

          > > > suspect, also in Nietzsche, which is really all about the

          >

          > > > renunciation of the world illusion that the thinker mediates unto

          >

          > > > itself in and through its thinking that gone wild in the world in

          >

          > > > abstraction, within abstraction. The basic mistake that we almost

          >

          > > > inevitably make, with regard to thinking, is that we identify

          >

          > > > ourselves with our thinking, and we forget that thinking is

          >

          > > > fundamentally just the highest and most sophisticated strategy for

          >

          > > > being in the world that we employ just for the sake of our
          survival,

          >

          > > > our continuation. When we deify our thinking, which is basically

          > just

          >

          > > > our instrumentality, we forget our will, and in so doing, we end
          up

          >

          > > > worshipping, as our god, what is really only our instrument. It

          > would

          >

          > > > be like a carpenter praying to his hammer. We are not our minds.
          We

          >

          > > > have our minds. That is why it is possible for us to lose our
          minds.

          >

          > > > But we can never lose our will.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > As for Berkeley, I have read Berkeley's "Three Dialogues Between

          >

          > > > Hylas and Philonous." Berkeley, like Descartes, is another one of

          >

          > > > those philosophers who has become the target of grotesque

          >

          > > > caricaturization that, in no way, resembles the real substance of

          > his

          >

          > > > thinking. Berkeley represents a critical step in the development
          of

          >

          > > > the idealistic standpoint that began with Descartes, and
          proceeded

          > to

          >

          > > > take shape through Malebranche, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, and Kant.
          All

          >

          > > > of these thinkers were grappling, in some fashion or another, with

          >

          > > > the radically dualistic nature of concrete experience. None of
          them

          >

          > > > really believed that dualism, per se, could be a defensible

          >

          > > > metaphysical position to take, and none of them, most especially

          >

          > > > Berkeley, denied the reality of what we experience. These men
          were

          > no

          >

          > > > sophomores. We should give them credit for having a mind with
          which

          >

          > > > to think. Berkeley pointed out, to the contrary, not that what we

          >

          > > > perceive is an illusion, but that there is something deeply wrong

          >

          > > > with the way in which we habitually conceive of what it is that we

          >

          > > > perceive, namely, this concept of substance, which has been taken

          > for

          >

          > > > granted for a very long time.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > The illusory nature of what it is that we perceive, and,
          ultimately,

          >

          > > > of all of our experience, only comes fully into the light much

          > later,

          >

          > > > and, I think, it is Schopenhauer who really brings this home to
          us.

          >

          > > > But, in arriving at this undersanding that our experience really
          is

          >

          > > > fundamentally an illusion, all that is really meant by this is
          that

          >

          > > > our experience is relative to a necessarily one-sided point of
          view.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > I thrust the stick into the clear water and it appears to be bent,

          >

          > > > but I know that it really isn't. This illusory appearance is no

          >

          > > > hallucination. There is an explanation for it. But the explanation

          >

          > > > involves a deeper understanding of the nature of light, how light

          >

          > > > propagates, how geometry can be used to describe the propagation
          of

          >

          > > > light, and the ultimate insight that for all physical materials

          > there

          >

          > > > is such a thing as an index of refraction for the propagation of

          >

          > > > light through that material.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > All of a sudden, this illusion has led to some pretty deep
          insights

          >

          > > > into the inner workings of physical existence, things that we do
          not

          >

          > > > directly perceive, nor do we understand them clearly at first,
          but,

          >

          > > > in no way, has this deeper insight prevented the illusion from
          still

          >

          > > > happening. We see only a part of the reality that is there. We
          have

          >

          > > > to infer the rest. Reality is deep phenomenality. There is nothing

          >

          > > > really mysterious about this fact, but it leads to some important,

          >

          > > > and rather astonishing, metaphysical conclusions that are,
          moerover,

          >

          > > > more than adequately backed up by our current scientific

          >

          > > > understanding of the inner workings physical existence, to the

          > extent

          >

          > > > that we know it so far.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > In my opinion, The only valid metaphysics must satisfy at least

          > these

          >

          > > > two criteria:

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > First of all, it must be radically empirical, that is, it must
          take

          >

          > > > the concrete experience as its ultimate starting point. The

          > Cartesian

          >

          > > > insight is simply the recognition that concrete experience falls

          > into

          >

          > > > two broad classifications, what is outside, and what is inside,
          what

          >

          > > > is physically existing, and what is also psychologically existing.

          >

          > > > The Cartesian standpoint is a necessary starting over again. It is

          >

          > > > not, however, the radical starting point. It was experience that
          led

          >

          > > > to doubt, that led to the Cartesian insight, that led to the new

          >

          > > > beginning for the metaphysical reflection. In moving onward from

          > that

          >

          > > > new beginning, if the metaphysicist now totally disregards the

          >

          > > > empirical context that led him up to that need to start over, his

          >

          > > > metaphysical thinking becomes detached from anything empirical,

          >

          > > > concrete, and experiential, and it becomes mental masturbation,
          the

          >

          > > > autoeroticism of a thinking that has only thought itself, which is

          >

          > > > impossible anyway, because it is is thinkers that think, not
          thought

          >

          > > > itself.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > Secondly, metaphysics must bring its interpretative results all
          the

          >

          > > > way back to the original concrete experience, either in its outer

          >

          > > > physical form, or in its relatively recently recognized inner

          >

          > > > psychological form. The metaphysicist must, in this sense,

          > ultimately

          >

          > > > employ an experimental method, just like what is done in science.
          If

          >

          > > > the results are irreproducible, if they cannot be exhibited in the

          >

          > > > concrete experience, if some other thinker cannot also think this

          >

          > > > thought coherently, then we have more than sufficient reason to

          > doubt

          >

          > > > the veracity of the purported results.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > The only other thing I might add is that what is characteristic of

          >

          > > > metaphysics is that it is interpretation. Science is basically

          >

          > > > curiosity in action, with an added practical benefit, namely,

          >

          > > > technology. Science seeks to know and to understand, and, when it

          >

          > > > goes deeply enough, it ends up becoming metaphysical because it

          >

          > > > reaches the point where interpretation, more so than knowing or

          >

          > > > understanding, becomes the main theoretical issue. Beyond just

          >

          > > > knowing, or understanding, there is such a thing as insight. This

          >

          > > > interpretative realm is the metaphysical, and it is necessarily

          >

          > > > speculative.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > As for theology, well, I think it is high time that it be shown
          the

          >

          > > > door, because, for the life of me, I cannot really figure out how

          >

          > > > theology can neatly fit into any of these categories of thought.

          >

          > > > Faith is just a euphemism for pressing the "I believe" button as
          far

          >

          > > > as I am concerned. Yeah, Hegel inspired me for a while. But that
          was

          >

          > > > because he was addressing the deep seated psychological need that
          we

          >

          > > > all have to feel like we are connected with a deeper meaning to

          >

          > > > things. Besides, Hegel plays quite cleverly on the philosophical

          >

          > > > wonder, the astonishment, that is the root experience out of which

          >

          > > > metaphysics naturally flows; but he hijacks it for orthodox

          >

          > > > theological designs. His philosophy of spirit is entirely

          > misleading.

          >

          > > > It does not produce the result that it promises, namely, the
          truth.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > The probelm here, I think, is that we can forget that our need for

          >

          > > > insight, not blind faith, not mere belief, not orthodoxy, is the

          > real

          >

          > > > motive force that is driving us toward truth. We always know when
          we

          >

          > > > get more truth. It comes to us as insight. But, it always seems
          to

          > be

          >

          > > > tha case that this more truth that we get, the insight, is itself

          >

          > > > inexplicable, baffling, and so it leads beyond itself to yet
          deeper

          >

          > > > insights.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > Case in point: quantum tunneling. The fundamental particle
          literally

          >

          > > > disappears from here and reappears over there, instantaneously.
          Now,

          >

          > > > either the theory is wrong, because we know that there cannot be

          >

          > > > movement from one place to another in space without time
          duration,

          > or

          >

          > > > else, space-time itself is not what we think it is. There is

          >

          > > > something hidden there that we do not directly observe, hidden

          >

          > > > structure, inner articulation, and, in fact, space-time itself is

          >

          > > > probably an articulated manifold that has deep structure.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > Case in point: the Big Bang. Reliable observation and good theory

          > has

          >

          > > > led us to the conclusion that this universe is expanding in every

          >

          > > > direction. Ergo, it had a beginning about fifteen billion years
          ago.

          >

          > > > But this cannot be the beginning of time, because, a beginning of

          >

          > > > time is a contradiction. The concept of beginning only makes
          sense

          > if

          >

          > > > there already is time. Hence, the Big Bang cannot be the
          beginning

          > of

          >

          > > > time. But, unless some radical new fact comes to light, there

          >

          > > > certainly was a beginning of the universe. But this is also a

          >

          > > > contradcition, because, by univrese, we really mean being, the

          >

          > > > totality, all that there is, ever was, and ever will be. To exist

          > out

          >

          > > > of nothing is impossible. Hence, either this theory is wrong, or,

          >

          > > > this is not the only universe, in which case, there is a whole lot

          >

          > > > more to the really real universe than what we happen to be
          existing

          >

          > > > in right now and have ths far taken to be *the* universe. The

          >

          > > > universe, it turns out, might in fact be one of many, perhaps one
          of

          >

          > > > an infinite number of universes in a multiverse. Maybe these other

          >

          > > > universes which, more and more, physicists believe probably do

          > exist,

          >

          > > > is where the matter inside of the event horizon of the black hole

          >

          > > > goes. Stephen Hwakings has been working for a number of years on a

          >

          > > > cosmological model based upon what we can infer, quite cleverly
          what

          >

          > > > might be happening inside of the interior of the black hole, and
          he

          >

          > > > has developed the hypothesis that what we see in the history of
          our

          >

          > > > universe may be just like what is going on inside of the event

          >

          > > > horizon of the black hole. It could be that every black hole is,
          on

          >

          > > > that inner side of its event horizon, a Big Bang that is the

          >

          > > > beginning of another universe.

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > > Hb3g

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > >

          >

          > > >

          >

          > >

          >

          > >

          >

          > >

          >

          > >

          >

          > > **************************************

          >

          > > See what's free at http://www.aol.com

          >

          > >

          >

          > >

          >

          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          >

          > >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          >

          > __________________________________________________________

          > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
          free

          > from AOL at AOL.com.

          > =0

          >






















          ________________________________________________________________________
          AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
          from AOL at AOL.com.
          =0
        • rtherriault@live.com
          I think there were basically two general themes which I remember from studying Existentialism: Death and Authenticity. There seems to be some kind of basic
          Message 4 of 26 , Nov 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I think there were basically two general themes which I remember from studying Existentialism: Death and Authenticity.



            There seems to be some kind of basic contradiction in the lives of a great number of people. We go through great lengths examining such things as gold and diamonds and works of Art and facts of Science and paper money, in an effort to determine their authenticity (realness) and to prevent any counterfeiting, Yet we take great pride in our own lives that we are able to put on masks and appear as something we are not. We take great pride in being fakes and counterfeits. Why is this?



            Is it simply a case of the Real vs Phony, the Philosopher vs Sophist? Are Real people just hopeless Romantics, Romeos and Juliets, heading for a sad ending? Is Reality just an illusion? Are Realists headed for a great disillusionment? Is Life just "The Greatest Show on Earth?" Is this "The Reality?"




            Your Friendly Philosopher,

            Bob T

            http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
            http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
            http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
            http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
            http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
            http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • tom
            I guess there has more often than not been a big gap between the reality of people s feelings, actions, and values and what is most sellable. Obviously,
            Message 5 of 26 , Nov 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I guess there has more often than not been a big gap between the reality of people's feelings, actions, and values and what is most sellable. Obviously, politicians try to be as many things to many people as possible. Authenticity is only feasible when acceptance is not a high priority or under unusual circumstances when a person's feelings, thoughts, actions and values do happen to coincide with those of the people to be sold or persuaded.Machiavelli said something to the affect that in order to obtain, maintain, and expand power, power had to be number one priority. He said it was fine for a prince to be compassionate, generous, truthful etc as long as so doing didnt undermine the primary value of power acquisition and maintenance. If it did, then by what we'd now call the law of natural selection other politicians who put power number one will take over.


              Tom
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: rtherriault@...
              To: existlist ; basic_existentialism
              Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:26 PM
              Subject: [existlist] authenticity



              I think there were basically two general themes which I remember from studying Existentialism: Death and Authenticity.

              There seems to be some kind of basic contradiction in the lives of a great number of people. We go through great lengths examining such things as gold and diamonds and works of Art and facts of Science and paper money, in an effort to determine their authenticity (realness) and to prevent any counterfeiting, Yet we take great pride in our own lives that we are able to put on masks and appear as something we are not. We take great pride in being fakes and counterfeits. Why is this?

              Is it simply a case of the Real vs Phony, the Philosopher vs Sophist? Are Real people just hopeless Romantics, Romeos and Juliets, heading for a sad ending? Is Reality just an illusion? Are Realists headed for a great disillusionment? Is Life just "The Greatest Show on Earth?" Is this "The Reality?"

              Your Friendly Philosopher,

              Bob T

              http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
              http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
              http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
              http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
              http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
              http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • rtherriault@live.com
              I heard somewhere the saying that a person can be either honest or sociable. Do you find this true? Your Friendly Philosopher, Bob T
              Message 6 of 26 , Nov 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I heard somewhere the saying that "a person can be either honest or sociable."

                Do you find this true?


                Your Friendly Philosopher,

                Bob T

                http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
                http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com


                From: tom
                Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 3:40 PM
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity


                I guess there has more often than not been a big gap between the reality of people's feelings, actions, and values and what is most sellable. Obviously, politicians try to be as many things to many people as possible. Authenticity is only feasible when acceptance is not a high priority or under unusual circumstances when a person's feelings, thoughts, actions and values do happen to coincide with those of the people to be sold or persuaded.Machiavelli said something to the affect that in order to obtain, maintain, and expand power, power had to be number one priority. He said it was fine for a prince to be compassionate, generous, truthful etc as long as so doing didnt undermine the primary value of power acquisition and maintenance. If it did, then by what we'd now call the law of natural selection other politicians who put power number one will take over.

                Tom
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: rtherriault@...
                To: existlist ; basic_existentialism
                Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:26 PM
                Subject: [existlist] authenticity

                I think there were basically two general themes which I remember from studying Existentialism: Death and Authenticity.

                There seems to be some kind of basic contradiction in the lives of a great number of people. We go through great lengths examining such things as gold and diamonds and works of Art and facts of Science and paper money, in an effort to determine their authenticity (realness) and to prevent any counterfeiting, Yet we take great pride in our own lives that we are able to put on masks and appear as something we are not. We take great pride in being fakes and counterfeits. Why is this?

                Is it simply a case of the Real vs Phony, the Philosopher vs Sophist? Are Real people just hopeless Romantics, Romeos and Juliets, heading for a sad ending? Is Reality just an illusion? Are Realists headed for a great disillusionment? Is Life just "The Greatest Show on Earth?" Is this "The Reality?"

                Your Friendly Philosopher,

                Bob T

                http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
                http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • tom
                Not necesarily in all cases. A person might enjoy a person s cooking, and compliment the cook on their fine meal, or in other areas also, there are many times
                Message 7 of 26 , Nov 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Not necesarily in all cases. A person might enjoy a person's cooking, and compliment the cook on their fine meal, or in other areas also, there are many times when a person can honestly say true things that are sociable. However, when we talk about large scale political agendas in which it is necesary to get majority support for success, candor accompanied by large scale acceptance becomes more unlikely.

                  Tom
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: rtherriault@...
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:45 PM
                  Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity


                  I heard somewhere the saying that "a person can be either honest or sociable."

                  Do you find this true?

                  Your Friendly Philosopher,

                  Bob T

                  http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                  http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                  http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                  http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                  http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
                  http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com

                  From: tom
                  Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 3:40 PM
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity

                  I guess there has more often than not been a big gap between the reality of people's feelings, actions, and values and what is most sellable. Obviously, politicians try to be as many things to many people as possible. Authenticity is only feasible when acceptance is not a high priority or under unusual circumstances when a person's feelings, thoughts, actions and values do happen to coincide with those of the people to be sold or persuaded.Machiavelli said something to the affect that in order to obtain, maintain, and expand power, power had to be number one priority. He said it was fine for a prince to be compassionate, generous, truthful etc as long as so doing didnt undermine the primary value of power acquisition and maintenance. If it did, then by what we'd now call the law of natural selection other politicians who put power number one will take over.

                  Tom
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: rtherriault@...
                  To: existlist ; basic_existentialism
                  Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:26 PM
                  Subject: [existlist] authenticity

                  I think there were basically two general themes which I remember from studying Existentialism: Death and Authenticity.

                  There seems to be some kind of basic contradiction in the lives of a great number of people. We go through great lengths examining such things as gold and diamonds and works of Art and facts of Science and paper money, in an effort to determine their authenticity (realness) and to prevent any counterfeiting, Yet we take great pride in our own lives that we are able to put on masks and appear as something we are not. We take great pride in being fakes and counterfeits. Why is this?

                  Is it simply a case of the Real vs Phony, the Philosopher vs Sophist? Are Real people just hopeless Romantics, Romeos and Juliets, heading for a sad ending? Is Reality just an illusion? Are Realists headed for a great disillusionment? Is Life just "The Greatest Show on Earth?" Is this "The Reality?"

                  Your Friendly Philosopher,

                  Bob T

                  http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                  http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                  http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                  http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                  http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
                  http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • fredaspbury
                  a good film to watch on this theme is persona by ingmar bergman. the characters take the concept to an extreme but it outlines the idea perfectly ...
                  Message 8 of 26 , Nov 2, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    a good film to watch on this theme is 'persona' by ingmar bergman. the
                    characters take the concept to an extreme but it outlines the idea
                    perfectly




                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Not necesarily in all cases. A person might enjoy a person's
                    cooking, and compliment the cook on their fine meal, or in other
                    areas also, there are many times when a person can honestly say true
                    things that are sociable. However, when we talk about large scale
                    political agendas in which it is necesary to get majority support for
                    success, candor accompanied by large scale acceptance becomes more
                    unlikely.
                    >
                    > Tom
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: rtherriault@...
                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:45 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity
                    >
                    >
                    > I heard somewhere the saying that "a person can be either honest
                    or sociable."
                    >
                    > Do you find this true?
                    >
                    > Your Friendly Philosopher,
                    >
                    > Bob T
                    >
                    > http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                    > http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                    > http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                    > http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                    > http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
                    > http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com
                    >
                    > From: tom
                    > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 3:40 PM
                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity
                    >
                    > I guess there has more often than not been a big gap between the
                    reality of people's feelings, actions, and values and what is most
                    sellable. Obviously, politicians try to be as many things to many
                    people as possible. Authenticity is only feasible when acceptance is
                    not a high priority or under unusual circumstances when a person's
                    feelings, thoughts, actions and values do happen to coincide with
                    those of the people to be sold or persuaded.Machiavelli said something
                    to the affect that in order to obtain, maintain, and expand power,
                    power had to be number one priority. He said it was fine for a prince
                    to be compassionate, generous, truthful etc as long as so doing didnt
                    undermine the primary value of power acquisition and maintenance. If
                    it did, then by what we'd now call the law of natural selection other
                    politicians who put power number one will take over.
                    >
                    > Tom
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: rtherriault@...
                    > To: existlist ; basic_existentialism
                    > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:26 PM
                    > Subject: [existlist] authenticity
                    >
                    > I think there were basically two general themes which I remember
                    from studying Existentialism: Death and Authenticity.
                    >
                    > There seems to be some kind of basic contradiction in the lives of
                    a great number of people. We go through great lengths examining such
                    things as gold and diamonds and works of Art and facts of Science and
                    paper money, in an effort to determine their authenticity (realness)
                    and to prevent any counterfeiting, Yet we take great pride in our own
                    lives that we are able to put on masks and appear as something we are
                    not. We take great pride in being fakes and counterfeits. Why is this?
                    >
                    > Is it simply a case of the Real vs Phony, the Philosopher vs
                    Sophist? Are Real people just hopeless Romantics, Romeos and Juliets,
                    heading for a sad ending? Is Reality just an illusion? Are Realists
                    headed for a great disillusionment? Is Life just "The Greatest Show on
                    Earth?" Is this "The Reality?"
                    >
                    > Your Friendly Philosopher,
                    >
                    > Bob T
                    >
                    > http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                    > http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                    > http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                    > http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                    > http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
                    > http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  • rtherriault@live.com
                    Could you explain the movie a little? I doubt if I will have the chance to see it. Your Friendly Philosopher, Bob T http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                    Message 9 of 26 , Nov 2, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Could you explain the movie a little? I doubt if I will have the chance to see it.


                      Your Friendly Philosopher,

                      Bob T

                      http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                      http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                      http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                      http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                      http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
                      http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com


                      From: fredaspbury
                      Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 7:03 AM
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: authenticity


                      a good film to watch on this theme is 'persona' by ingmar bergman. the
                      characters take the concept to an extreme but it outlines the idea
                      perfectly

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Not necesarily in all cases. A person might enjoy a person's
                      cooking, and compliment the cook on their fine meal, or in other
                      areas also, there are many times when a person can honestly say true
                      things that are sociable. However, when we talk about large scale
                      political agendas in which it is necesary to get majority support for
                      success, candor accompanied by large scale acceptance becomes more
                      unlikely.
                      >
                      > Tom
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: rtherriault@...
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:45 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity
                      >
                      >
                      > I heard somewhere the saying that "a person can be either honest
                      or sociable."
                      >
                      > Do you find this true?
                      >
                      > Your Friendly Philosopher,
                      >
                      > Bob T
                      >
                      > http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                      > http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                      > http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                      > http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                      > http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
                      > http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com
                      >
                      > From: tom
                      > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 3:40 PM
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity
                      >
                      > I guess there has more often than not been a big gap between the
                      reality of people's feelings, actions, and values and what is most
                      sellable. Obviously, politicians try to be as many things to many
                      people as possible. Authenticity is only feasible when acceptance is
                      not a high priority or under unusual circumstances when a person's
                      feelings, thoughts, actions and values do happen to coincide with
                      those of the people to be sold or persuaded.Machiavelli said something
                      to the affect that in order to obtain, maintain, and expand power,
                      power had to be number one priority. He said it was fine for a prince
                      to be compassionate, generous, truthful etc as long as so doing didnt
                      undermine the primary value of power acquisition and maintenance. If
                      it did, then by what we'd now call the law of natural selection other
                      politicians who put power number one will take over.
                      >
                      > Tom
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: rtherriault@...
                      > To: existlist ; basic_existentialism
                      > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:26 PM
                      > Subject: [existlist] authenticity
                      >
                      > I think there were basically two general themes which I remember
                      from studying Existentialism: Death and Authenticity.
                      >
                      > There seems to be some kind of basic contradiction in the lives of
                      a great number of people. We go through great lengths examining such
                      things as gold and diamonds and works of Art and facts of Science and
                      paper money, in an effort to determine their authenticity (realness)
                      and to prevent any counterfeiting, Yet we take great pride in our own
                      lives that we are able to put on masks and appear as something we are
                      not. We take great pride in being fakes and counterfeits. Why is this?
                      >
                      > Is it simply a case of the Real vs Phony, the Philosopher vs
                      Sophist? Are Real people just hopeless Romantics, Romeos and Juliets,
                      heading for a sad ending? Is Reality just an illusion? Are Realists
                      headed for a great disillusionment? Is Life just "The Greatest Show on
                      Earth?" Is this "The Reality?"
                      >
                      > Your Friendly Philosopher,
                      >
                      > Bob T
                      >
                      > http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                      > http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                      > http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                      > http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                      > http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
                      > http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • N0189933
                      its about an actress who suddenly stops speaking one day. various doctors are brought in to explain the condition but none can. the actress goes to the
                      Message 10 of 26 , Nov 3, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        its about an actress who suddenly stops speaking one day. various doctors are brought in to explain the condition but none can. the actress goes to the countryside to relax and possibly recover with a nurse. we eventually discover that the actress has decided to stop speaking because she believes that every utterence is a lie, she does not want to lie anymore, life and language is inauthentic. thats basically the rub but i really do recomend that you watch it, along with any other bergman film, all of which have existentialism at their core, especially 'the seventh seal'

                        ________________________________

                        From: existlist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of rtherriault@...
                        Sent: Sun 02/11/2008 17:24
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: authenticity



                        Could you explain the movie a little? I doubt if I will have the chance to see it.

                        Your Friendly Philosopher,

                        Bob T

                        http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com <http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com/>
                        http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com <http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com/>
                        http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com <http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com/>
                        http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com <http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com/>
                        http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com <http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com/>
                        http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com <http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com/>

                        From: fredaspbury
                        Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 7:03 AM
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: authenticity

                        a good film to watch on this theme is 'persona' by ingmar bergman. the
                        characters take the concept to an extreme but it outlines the idea
                        perfectly

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com> , "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Not necesarily in all cases. A person might enjoy a person's
                        cooking, and compliment the cook on their fine meal, or in other
                        areas also, there are many times when a person can honestly say true
                        things that are sociable. However, when we talk about large scale
                        political agendas in which it is necesary to get majority support for
                        success, candor accompanied by large scale acceptance becomes more
                        unlikely.
                        >
                        > Tom
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: rtherriault@...
                        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:45 PM
                        > Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity
                        >
                        >
                        > I heard somewhere the saying that "a person can be either honest
                        or sociable."
                        >
                        > Do you find this true?
                        >
                        > Your Friendly Philosopher,
                        >
                        > Bob T
                        >
                        > http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com <http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com/>
                        > http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com <http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com/>
                        > http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com <http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com/>
                        > http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com <http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com/>
                        > http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com <http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com/>
                        > http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com <http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com/>
                        >
                        > From: tom
                        > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 3:40 PM
                        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity
                        >
                        > I guess there has more often than not been a big gap between the
                        reality of people's feelings, actions, and values and what is most
                        sellable. Obviously, politicians try to be as many things to many
                        people as possible. Authenticity is only feasible when acceptance is
                        not a high priority or under unusual circumstances when a person's
                        feelings, thoughts, actions and values do happen to coincide with
                        those of the people to be sold or persuaded.Machiavelli said something
                        to the affect that in order to obtain, maintain, and expand power,
                        power had to be number one priority. He said it was fine for a prince
                        to be compassionate, generous, truthful etc as long as so doing didnt
                        undermine the primary value of power acquisition and maintenance. If
                        it did, then by what we'd now call the law of natural selection other
                        politicians who put power number one will take over.
                        >
                        > Tom
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: rtherriault@...
                        > To: existlist ; basic_existentialism
                        > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:26 PM
                        > Subject: [existlist] authenticity
                        >
                        > I think there were basically two general themes which I remember
                        from studying Existentialism: Death and Authenticity.
                        >
                        > There seems to be some kind of basic contradiction in the lives of
                        a great number of people. We go through great lengths examining such
                        things as gold and diamonds and works of Art and facts of Science and
                        paper money, in an effort to determine their authenticity (realness)
                        and to prevent any counterfeiting, Yet we take great pride in our own
                        lives that we are able to put on masks and appear as something we are
                        not. We take great pride in being fakes and counterfeits. Why is this?
                        >
                        > Is it simply a case of the Real vs Phony, the Philosopher vs
                        Sophist? Are Real people just hopeless Romantics, Romeos and Juliets,
                        heading for a sad ending? Is Reality just an illusion? Are Realists
                        headed for a great disillusionment? Is Life just "The Greatest Show on
                        Earth?" Is this "The Reality?"
                        >
                        > Your Friendly Philosopher,
                        >
                        > Bob T
                        >
                        > http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com <http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com/>
                        > http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com <http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com/>
                        > http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com <http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com/>
                        > http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com <http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com/>
                        > http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com <http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com/>
                        > http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com <http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com/>
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • rtherriault@live.com
                        Thanks Your Friendly Philosopher, Bob T http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                        Message 11 of 26 , Nov 3, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thanks


                          Your Friendly Philosopher,

                          Bob T

                          http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com
                          http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                          http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                          http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                          http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com
                          http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com


                          From: N0189933
                          Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 7:33 AM
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: authenticity


                          its about an actress who suddenly stops speaking one day. various doctors are brought in to explain the condition but none can. the actress goes to the countryside to relax and possibly recover with a nurse. we eventually discover that the actress has decided to stop speaking because she believes that every utterence is a lie, she does not want to lie anymore, life and language is inauthentic. thats basically the rub but i really do recomend that you watch it, along with any other bergman film, all of which have existentialism at their core, especially 'the seventh seal'

                          ________________________________

                          From: existlist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of rtherriault@...
                          Sent: Sun 02/11/2008 17:24
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: authenticity

                          Could you explain the movie a little? I doubt if I will have the chance to see it.

                          Your Friendly Philosopher,

                          Bob T

                          http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com <http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com/>
                          http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com <http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com/>
                          http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com <http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com/>
                          http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com <http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com/>
                          http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com <http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com/>
                          http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com <http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com/>

                          From: fredaspbury
                          Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 7:03 AM
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>
                          Subject: [existlist] Re: authenticity

                          a good film to watch on this theme is 'persona' by ingmar bergman. the
                          characters take the concept to an extreme but it outlines the idea
                          perfectly

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com> , "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Not necesarily in all cases. A person might enjoy a person's
                          cooking, and compliment the cook on their fine meal, or in other
                          areas also, there are many times when a person can honestly say true
                          things that are sociable. However, when we talk about large scale
                          political agendas in which it is necesary to get majority support for
                          success, candor accompanied by large scale acceptance becomes more
                          unlikely.
                          >
                          > Tom
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: rtherriault@...
                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>
                          > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:45 PM
                          > Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity
                          >
                          >
                          > I heard somewhere the saying that "a person can be either honest
                          or sociable."
                          >
                          > Do you find this true?
                          >
                          > Your Friendly Philosopher,
                          >
                          > Bob T
                          >
                          > http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com <http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com/>
                          > http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com <http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com/>
                          > http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com <http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com/>
                          > http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com <http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com/>
                          > http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com <http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com/>
                          > http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com <http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com/>
                          >
                          > From: tom
                          > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 3:40 PM
                          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>
                          > Subject: Re: [existlist] authenticity
                          >
                          > I guess there has more often than not been a big gap between the
                          reality of people's feelings, actions, and values and what is most
                          sellable. Obviously, politicians try to be as many things to many
                          people as possible. Authenticity is only feasible when acceptance is
                          not a high priority or under unusual circumstances when a person's
                          feelings, thoughts, actions and values do happen to coincide with
                          those of the people to be sold or persuaded.Machiavelli said something
                          to the affect that in order to obtain, maintain, and expand power,
                          power had to be number one priority. He said it was fine for a prince
                          to be compassionate, generous, truthful etc as long as so doing didnt
                          undermine the primary value of power acquisition and maintenance. If
                          it did, then by what we'd now call the law of natural selection other
                          politicians who put power number one will take over.
                          >
                          > Tom
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: rtherriault@...
                          > To: existlist ; basic_existentialism
                          > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:26 PM
                          > Subject: [existlist] authenticity
                          >
                          > I think there were basically two general themes which I remember
                          from studying Existentialism: Death and Authenticity.
                          >
                          > There seems to be some kind of basic contradiction in the lives of
                          a great number of people. We go through great lengths examining such
                          things as gold and diamonds and works of Art and facts of Science and
                          paper money, in an effort to determine their authenticity (realness)
                          and to prevent any counterfeiting, Yet we take great pride in our own
                          lives that we are able to put on masks and appear as something we are
                          not. We take great pride in being fakes and counterfeits. Why is this?
                          >
                          > Is it simply a case of the Real vs Phony, the Philosopher vs
                          Sophist? Are Real people just hopeless Romantics, Romeos and Juliets,
                          heading for a sad ending? Is Reality just an illusion? Are Realists
                          headed for a great disillusionment? Is Life just "The Greatest Show on
                          Earth?" Is this "The Reality?"
                          >
                          > Your Friendly Philosopher,
                          >
                          > Bob T
                          >
                          > http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com <http://www.anecdotalstories.blogspot.com/>
                          > http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com <http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com/>
                          > http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com <http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com/>
                          > http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com <http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com/>
                          > http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com <http://www.jennyandi.blogspot.com/>
                          > http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com <http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com/>
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.