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

Re: [existlist] Re: Slogans or what happened to free speech?

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Louise, I think that you may be mistaking the Heideggerian ontical/ontological with the mundane/ideal in the Platonic sense. As you may remember, Heidegger s
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 22, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Louise,

      I think that you may be mistaking the Heideggerian ontical/ontological with
      the mundane/ideal in the Platonic sense. As you may remember, Heidegger's whole
      point is to show how Plato's idealism was the inaugurating moment in the West
      that foreclosed the ontological or the meaning of Being.

      But even if that were not so, yours is in any case a statement of extreme
      idealism when you say that philosophy is eternal. Even Kant would say that
      philosophy is an attempt to understand the noumenal; and as such it is the limit of
      Reason, or the limit of a phenomenal being to know the noumenal, that spawns
      philosophy. An Eternal Philosophy (that is, a meaning that inheres forever
      regardless of any Subject) implies a noumenality without end, and thus an
      inherently divided Subjectivity without a phenomenal Subject.

      Still, yes, it will take a lot more than a campus cop to quell Delphi.

      Wil

      In a message dated 9/22/07 6:44:02 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:


      > Herman, I think this a misleading way to characterise the situation,
      > at a forum dedicated to existential philosophy and literature. Once
      > more, we encounter the distinction between the ontical world and the
      > ontological reality. The brute force of a policeman or a soldier,
      > or, for that matter, a self-appointed vigilante, may silence a
      > particular individual, thereby frightening others into submission,
      > should they happen to sympathise with the form of his dissent.
      > Philosophically, though, the argument is unaffected. Truth is not a
      > placard, which may be confiscated. It is eternal. The Enlightenment
      > values to which Wil alludes depend on human beings, to keep them in
      > existence. My expression here echoes and translates, in some manner,
      > William Blake's assertion that "God only acts and is, in existing
      > beings or men" (from memory, unsure whether I have the words right,
      > or from which prophetic book they derive). Louise
      >




      **************************************
      See what's new at http://www.aol.com


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • louise
      Intuitively, at any rate, I know what I mean, and will probably need to take a careful digression into Scholastic terminology, to elucidate sometime. Gee, am
      Message 2 of 24 , Sep 23, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Intuitively, at any rate, I know what I mean, and will probably need
        to take a careful digression into Scholastic terminology, to
        elucidate sometime. Gee, am so sleepy, and must be sure not to
        forget the rice and pulses simmering on the hob. Until later. L.

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        >
        > Louise,
        >
        > I think that you may be mistaking the Heideggerian
        ontical/ontological with
        > the mundane/ideal in the Platonic sense. As you may remember,
        Heidegger's whole
        > point is to show how Plato's idealism was the inaugurating moment
        in the West
        > that foreclosed the ontological or the meaning of Being.
        >
        > But even if that were not so, yours is in any case a statement of
        extreme
        > idealism when you say that philosophy is eternal. Even Kant would
        say that
        > philosophy is an attempt to understand the noumenal; and as such it
        is the limit of
        > Reason, or the limit of a phenomenal being to know the noumenal,
        that spawns
        > philosophy. An Eternal Philosophy (that is, a meaning that inheres
        forever
        > regardless of any Subject) implies a noumenality without end, and
        thus an
        > inherently divided Subjectivity without a phenomenal Subject.
        >
        > Still, yes, it will take a lot more than a campus cop to quell
        Delphi.
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > In a message dated 9/22/07 6:44:02 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:
        >
        >
        > > Herman, I think this a misleading way to characterise the
        situation,
        > > at a forum dedicated to existential philosophy and literature.
        Once
        > > more, we encounter the distinction between the ontical world and
        the
        > > ontological reality. The brute force of a policeman or a soldier,
        > > or, for that matter, a self-appointed vigilante, may silence a
        > > particular individual, thereby frightening others into submission,
        > > should they happen to sympathise with the form of his dissent.
        > > Philosophically, though, the argument is unaffected. Truth is not
        a
        > > placard, which may be confiscated. It is eternal. The
        Enlightenment
        > > values to which Wil alludes depend on human beings, to keep them
        in
        > > existence. My expression here echoes and translates, in some
        manner,
        > > William Blake's assertion that "God only acts and is, in existing
        > > beings or men" (from memory, unsure whether I have the words
        right,
        > > or from which prophetic book they derive). Louise
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > **************************************
        > See what's new at http://www.aol.com
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Herman B. Triplegood
        I was being sarcastic. Instead of reading The use of force is the end of the argument read [The behavior of the police leads me to conclude that they act as
        Message 3 of 24 , Sep 25, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I was being sarcastic.

          Instead of reading "The use of force is the end of the argument"
          read "[The behavior of the police leads me to conclude that they act
          as if they think] the use of force is the end of the arguent."

          I certainly don't believe that this is true.

          Hb3g

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > The use of force is the end of the argument.
          >
          > Herman, I think this a misleading way to characterise the
          situation,
          > at a forum dedicated to existential philosophy and literature.
          Once
          > more, we encounter the distinction between the ontical world and
          the
          > ontological reality. The brute force of a policeman or a soldier,
          > or, for that matter, a self-appointed vigilante, may silence a
          > particular individual, thereby frightening others into submission,
          > should they happen to sympathise with the form of his dissent.
          > Philosophically, though, the argument is unaffected. Truth is not
          a
          > placard, which may be confiscated. It is eternal. The
          Enlightenment
          > values to which Wil alludes depend on human beings, to keep them in
          > existence. My expression here echoes and translates, in some
          manner,
          > William Blake's assertion that "God only acts and is, in existing
          > beings or men" (from memory, unsure whether I have the words right,
          > or from which prophetic book they derive). Louise
          >
          > >
          > > When the police taser a dissident student, or an unruly drunk,
          the
          > > following message is conveyed to the public: We, the police, have
          > the
          > > absolute power to end of any discussion. We, the police, carry
          upon
          > > our belts, the final solution to every social problem.
          > >
          > > The police want the dissident student to shut up. The police want
          > the
          > > unruly drunk to grovel in abject submission to their authority.
          The
          > > police want the lingerer in the library to leave. The police want
          > the
          > > distraught son to be normal.
          > >
          > > Clearly, the police are sending the message that they, the
          police,
          > > are the ones who are really in charge.
          > >
          > > It isn't about free speech. It is about free anything.
          > >
          > > And so, it goes on and on.
          > >
          > > Hb3g
          > >
          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@>
          > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > jimstuart46:
          > > > > I think the taser also served to show the whole world US
          police
          > > > > methods. To me the completely unnecessary use of the taser –
          > > there
          > > > > were four police/security officers well capable of
          restraining
          > > him
          > > > > and escorting him out of the hall – is more revealing of the
          > > state
          > > > > of US society than that he had his microphone turned off
          after
          > > one
          > > > > minute. I gather that the one-minute rule was applicable to
          all
          > > > > questioners, so I think the central issue arising out of this
          > > > > incident is police/security forces out of control rather than
          > the
          > > > > suppression of free speech.
          > > > >
          > > > > Has there been any public discussion about the over-use of
          > tasers
          > > in the US, and figures for fatalities resulting from taser
          > use/abuse?
          > > > >
          > > > > Jim
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > > i remember participating in a list about another student who
          > > lingered in
          > > > the university library when he didn't have his student card on
          > him.
          > > the
          > > > tasering occurred as he was in fact leaving after an
          altercation
          > > with
          > > > personnel.
          > > >
          > > > here in Bloomington (home of IU campus) a distraught mentally
          ill
          > > young
          > > > man having learned of the death of his father was arrested for
          > > wandering
          > > > in the streets and acting erratically. he was killed by being
          > > tasered
          > > > half a dozen times AFTER being secured in a jail cell, hands
          > > handcuffed
          > > > behind his back. the tasering was applied because he allegedly
          > > refused
          > > > to follow orders, which almost certainly he couldn't understand
          > in
          > > that
          > > > state. the incident became public because it was picked up by
          the
          > > prison
          > > > camera.
          > > >
          > > > even leaving aside ethics, a goal of minimizing risk to
          approach
          > > zero
          > > > for enforcement at the cost of corresponding increasing risk to
          > the
          > > > public is not maximizing security for society as a whole.
          > > >
          > > > eventually it comes around when that space is extended
          accepting
          > as
          > > > unfortunate but necessary of people being killed because of
          their
          > > > deviance from the norm in appearance or behavior, nevermind
          why,
          > > ask
          > > > questions later.
          > > >
          > > > aija
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • louise
          Again, I find that your terms, though clear in themselves, are obscurantist in effect. They are quite separate domains, that of philosophical enquiry, and
          Message 4 of 24 , Sep 26, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Again, I find that your terms, though clear in themselves, are
            obscurantist in effect. They are quite separate domains, that of
            philosophical enquiry, and that of ontical practicality, in which the
            police must carry out their duties. In other words, our task as
            thinkers is to enquire, first, what are the realities of policing in
            a particular situation, in a particular country, the USA in this
            instance, and, secondly, to consider how, if at all, philosophical
            thinking may contribute some useful insight. If, as I assume from my
            British standpoint, the duty of a police officer in a democracy is to
            uphold the law and protect the innocent, why is there an 'argument'
            in the first place? The question for me, as for Jim, would be, was
            that not a wholly disproportionate use of force, in the given
            situation? I was appalled at what I saw. Insofar as I understand
            your own characterisation of what happened, you give up on the
            situation philosophically, saying that, if the police believe they
            have the power to enforce a rule in such a dangerous and
            disproportionate manner, there is nothing more to be said. Well, if
            one were the student concerned, certainly compliance would be wise.
            We, however, may discuss philosophical implications, and whether our
            sedentary efforts may connect at all with the life of the street,
            where conflict may be bloody, and potentially fatal. Louise


            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > I was being sarcastic.
            >
            > Instead of reading "The use of force is the end of the argument"
            > read "[The behavior of the police leads me to conclude that they
            act
            > as if they think] the use of force is the end of the arguent."
            >
            > I certainly don't believe that this is true.
            >
            > Hb3g
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@>
            > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > > The use of force is the end of the argument.
            > >
            > > Herman, I think this a misleading way to characterise the
            > situation,
            > > at a forum dedicated to existential philosophy and literature.
            > Once
            > > more, we encounter the distinction between the ontical world and
            > the
            > > ontological reality. The brute force of a policeman or a
            soldier,
            > > or, for that matter, a self-appointed vigilante, may silence a
            > > particular individual, thereby frightening others into
            submission,
            > > should they happen to sympathise with the form of his dissent.
            > > Philosophically, though, the argument is unaffected. Truth is
            not
            > a
            > > placard, which may be confiscated. It is eternal. The
            > Enlightenment
            > > values to which Wil alludes depend on human beings, to keep them
            in
            > > existence. My expression here echoes and translates, in some
            > manner,
            > > William Blake's assertion that "God only acts and is, in existing
            > > beings or men" (from memory, unsure whether I have the words
            right,
            > > or from which prophetic book they derive). Louise
            > >
            > > >
            > > > When the police taser a dissident student, or an unruly drunk,
            > the
            > > > following message is conveyed to the public: We, the police,
            have
            > > the
            > > > absolute power to end of any discussion. We, the police, carry
            > upon
            > > > our belts, the final solution to every social problem.
            > > >
            > > > The police want the dissident student to shut up. The police
            want
            > > the
            > > > unruly drunk to grovel in abject submission to their authority.
            > The
            > > > police want the lingerer in the library to leave. The police
            want
            > > the
            > > > distraught son to be normal.
            > > >
            > > > Clearly, the police are sending the message that they, the
            > police,
            > > > are the ones who are really in charge.
            > > >
            > > > It isn't about free speech. It is about free anything.
            > > >
            > > > And so, it goes on and on.
            > > >
            > > > Hb3g
            > > >
            > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs
            <beldavsa@>
            > > > wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > jimstuart46:
            > > > > > I think the taser also served to show the whole world US
            > police
            > > > > > methods. To me the completely unnecessary use of the taser –

            > > > there
            > > > > > were four police/security officers well capable of
            > restraining
            > > > him
            > > > > > and escorting him out of the hall – is more revealing of
            the
            > > > state
            > > > > > of US society than that he had his microphone turned off
            > after
            > > > one
            > > > > > minute. I gather that the one-minute rule was applicable to
            > all
            > > > > > questioners, so I think the central issue arising out of
            this
            > > > > > incident is police/security forces out of control rather
            than
            > > the
            > > > > > suppression of free speech.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Has there been any public discussion about the over-use of
            > > tasers
            > > > in the US, and figures for fatalities resulting from taser
            > > use/abuse?
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Jim
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > i remember participating in a list about another student who
            > > > lingered in
            > > > > the university library when he didn't have his student card
            on
            > > him.
            > > > the
            > > > > tasering occurred as he was in fact leaving after an
            > altercation
            > > > with
            > > > > personnel.
            > > > >
            > > > > here in Bloomington (home of IU campus) a distraught mentally
            > ill
            > > > young
            > > > > man having learned of the death of his father was arrested
            for
            > > > wandering
            > > > > in the streets and acting erratically. he was killed by being
            > > > tasered
            > > > > half a dozen times AFTER being secured in a jail cell, hands
            > > > handcuffed
            > > > > behind his back. the tasering was applied because he
            allegedly
            > > > refused
            > > > > to follow orders, which almost certainly he couldn't
            understand
            > > in
            > > > that
            > > > > state. the incident became public because it was picked up by
            > the
            > > > prison
            > > > > camera.
            > > > >
            > > > > even leaving aside ethics, a goal of minimizing risk to
            > approach
            > > > zero
            > > > > for enforcement at the cost of corresponding increasing risk
            to
            > > the
            > > > > public is not maximizing security for society as a whole.
            > > > >
            > > > > eventually it comes around when that space is extended
            > accepting
            > > as
            > > > > unfortunate but necessary of people being killed because of
            > their
            > > > > deviance from the norm in appearance or behavior, nevermind
            > why,
            > > > ask
            > > > > questions later.
            > > > >
            > > > > aija
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • eupraxis@aol.com
            Louise, What alarms some of us here in the US is the rising presence of police tactics in all areas of the social sphere. If it were isolated incidents, than
            Message 5 of 24 , Sep 26, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Louise,

              What alarms some of us here in the US is the rising presence of police
              tactics in all areas of the social sphere. If it were isolated incidents, than it
              would be much ado about nothing; but things look far more intrusive than that,
              especially since our present want-to-be junta came to power.

              Actually, matters in the UK look even more bleak to me. It appears to me that
              Mr Bliar was every bit the autocrat as Mr Bush, both sanctimonious sacks of
              s**t, in my opinoin.

              WS


              In a message dated 9/26/07 5:39:47 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:


              > Again, I find that your terms, though clear in themselves, are
              > obscurantist in effect. They are quite separate domains, that of
              > philosophical enquiry, and that of ontical practicality, in which the
              > police must carry out their duties. In other words, our task as
              > thinkers is to enquire, first, what are the realities of policing in
              > a particular situation, in a particular country, the USA in this
              > instance, and, secondly, to consider how, if at all, philosophical
              > thinking may contribute some useful insight. If, as I assume from my
              > British standpoint, the duty of a police officer in a democracy is to
              > uphold the law and protect the innocent, why is there an 'argument'
              > in the first place? The question for me, as for Jim, would be, was
              > that not a wholly disproportionate use of force, in the given
              > situation? I was appalled at what I saw. Insofar as I understand
              > your own characterisation of what happened, you give up on the
              > situation philosophically, saying that, if the police believe they
              > have the power to enforce a rule in such a dangerous and
              > disproportionate manner, there is nothing more to be said. Well, if
              > one were the student concerned, certainly compliance would be wise.
              > We, however, may discuss philosophical implications, and whether our
              > sedentary efforts may connect at all with the life of the street,
              > where conflict may be bloody, and potentially fatal. Louise
              >
              >
              >




              **************************************
              See what's new at http://www.aol.com


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Exist List Moderator
              The question of free will in a state with cameras everywhere (the U.K.), immediate search (France, Germany), and compulsion letters (U.S.) is a very
              Message 6 of 24 , Sep 26, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                The question of free will in a state with cameras everywhere (the
                U.K.), "immediate search" (France, Germany), and "compulsion
                letters" (U.S.) is a very serious question indeed. If I know the FBI,
                MI-5, or some other group of "concerned patriots" can enter my house
                or ask for my Internet activity logs, then I might behave quite
                differently than in a state of utopian anarchy.

                A day or two ago, I was ridding along at a nice clip, wearing my
                helmet and following almost all the other important rules. I knew I
                was speeding a bit, but thought nothing of it until I saw the cop on
                his parked motorcycle, radar gun in hand. Ooops. I slowed. I wondered
                if he was going to give me the blinking lights. My heart rate
                increased. I worried... He waved and smiled. Maybe it was some two-
                wheeled camaraderie.

                We all "fear" police for good reasons and bad. I was in the wrong,
                admittedly. But I was still afraid of the man on the very nice Harley.

                Police are a necessity. The question is how we train them and monitor
                them. How do we compromise reasoned use of authority with the need
                for order? That's not an easy question. Police and state authorities
                have a lot of power and believe they are acting in the best interest
                of society. Some will follow the law literally, which can lead to
                heavy-handed tactics. We *could* ticket everyone for speeding,
                jaywalking, and a half-dozen other legal infractions. We don't. We
                selectively enforce most laws -- which is how it should be.

                I understand police overreacting at times. I live in Minneapolis
                where there were four murders last week. The police in the 3rd
                Precinct are afraid and rightfully so. There are shops that sell
                Latin Kings and Chicago Crips shirts with pictures of dead leaders.
                The gangs are glorified. If I'm a cop in that area for too long, I'll
                start acting like everyone is a threat. That's why police shouldn't
                serve in such areas for more than a couple of years. There is a
                psychological effect we don't fully understand or appreciate.

                Do police abuse their authority? Yes. Do state police/investigators
                do the same, without the physical violence aspect? Yes.

                It's a matter of the police becoming what they think they are
                supposed to be. We need to constantly remind our state operatives
                that not everyone is a criminal, not every loudmouth is a physical
                threat. And we also need some police / agents willing to stand up and
                say "no" to some orders. That's a lot to ask.


                - C. S. Wyatt
                I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                that I shall be.
                http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.