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

Subversion

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Since hate speech is interpreted in such a biassed manner (I mean, it depends which group you criticise or label, right?), maybe we could run a seminar on
    Message 1 of 11 , May 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Since 'hate speech' is interpreted in such a biassed manner (I mean,
      it depends which group you criticise or label, right?), maybe we
      could run a seminar on 'rude speech' instead. I find that the
      requisite wit is lacking. Am I missing something, or are the role
      models particularly lacking in Britain? Could be our laws and
      customs again, the shamelessness of the culture, in valuing good
      manners in such specific ways, as almost to guarantee
      misrepresentation and the gratuitous deaths arising. How could that
      be good manners, anyway?? When anger gets outlawed, it proves most
      inconvenient to fall under the influence of the cult of Achilles.
      Who initiated that particular enthusiasm?? I must myself declare an
      interest. The more 'plain speech' is permitted me, the better my
      physical condition. Ah, the tyranny of health. If there were,
      however, a generous belief in the ideal of society, as a living
      concept, so to speak, in inclusivity and cohesion, an even-handedness
      in regard to personal feeling, whatever outward appearances or
      beliefs might accompany that feeling, change could be achieved by
      legisative means. After all, some people advocate, for instance, a
      degree of sexualisation of the child which even these enlightened
      times would generally consider beyond the pale. For most of us, a
      physical sensation, for instance of nausea or aggression, might be
      present should this advocacy be made in our vicinity. The right way
      to defeat poisonous ideas is by peaceable debate; an idea should not
      be a crime (hoping it's legal to state such a thesis!); we have
      policemen and judges to deal with crimes of assault and harassment.
      One of the reasons that the Protestant Christian traditions which
      form some sort of backcloth still to national life here in UK
      continue to hold my provisional trust is that there is a continuity
      there, of realistic assessment of distinctions, of how the human
      passions are so fierce, in wanting to escape the needful
      recognitions. The peaceable challenge of self-deception is seen by
      some as an invitation to violent disorder. If I stand against
      certain values apparently promulgated by the 'establishment', it is
      on the grounds of my hatred for violence, and the justifications
      invoked in its (implicit) defence. There are many questions here,
      including the basic ones of, what is the self, what is the mind, and
      what is deception. Coming back to the old chestnut, of course, what
      is truth??

      Louise
      ... not in jesting mood
    • mary.jo11
      ... Recently I shared drinks with the lovely ladies of our local VFW auxiliary, and we discussed many truths, from how to send gifts to our soldiers in the war
      Message 2 of 11 , May 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

        > There are many questions here,
        > including the basic ones of, what is the self, what is the mind, and
        > what is deception. Coming back to the old chestnut, of course, what
        > is truth??
        >
        > Louise

        Recently I shared drinks with the lovely ladies of our local VFW
        auxiliary, and we discussed many truths, from how to send gifts to our
        soldiers in the war zones to why certain men are idiots ;) Truth is
        relative to human activity, and according to Sartre, truth is experience:

        "The world appears to a being in the midst of the world: the
        conditions of appearance of the In-itself are defined by the
        In-itself. Thus perception is interiorization of the world, and, in a
        sense, presence of the world to itself. When I touch velvet, what I
        make exist is neither a velvet that is absolute and in itself nor a
        velvet relative to some sort of structure superimposed [structure de
        survol] by a transmundane consciousness. I make velvet exist for
        flesh. Food is manifested in the world as food to a being in the midst
        of the world. Therefore it is an absolute quality. The reality
        therefore is that the being manifests truth is in the world, is of the
        world, and is in danger in the world. The reality is that the
        illuminator can be destroyed (or strengthened or overcome) by what it
        illuminates. This belonging to the world of truth, or Realty, can also
        be defined as the fact that truth is experienced or lived. In a sense,
        all truth is lived as danger, effort, risk (even a 'scientific' truth)
        and, conversely, all that is lived (in rage, fear, shame, love,
        flight, good or bad faith), manifests Truth."

        TRUTH AND EXISTENCE by Jean-Paul Sartre
        © The University of Chicago Press, 1992
        First published Éditions Gallimard 1989
        Written by Jean-Paul Sartre 1948
        Original text established and annotated by Arlette Elkaïm-Sartre
        Translated by Adrian van den Hoven
        Edited and with an Introduction by Ronald Aronson

        Mary
      • louise
        ... and ... what ... our ... a ... midst ... the ... it ... also ... sense, ... truth) ... Mary, The quoted extract is very interesting, but appears to leave
        Message 3 of 11 , May 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.jo11" <ophiuchus@...> wrote:
          >
          > "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
          >
          > > There are many questions here,
          > > including the basic ones of, what is the self, what is the mind,
          and
          > > what is deception. Coming back to the old chestnut, of course,
          what
          > > is truth??
          > >
          > > Louise
          >
          > Recently I shared drinks with the lovely ladies of our local VFW
          > auxiliary, and we discussed many truths, from how to send gifts to
          our
          > soldiers in the war zones to why certain men are idiots ;) Truth is
          > relative to human activity, and according to Sartre, truth is
          experience:
          >
          > "The world appears to a being in the midst of the world: the
          > conditions of appearance of the In-itself are defined by the
          > In-itself. Thus perception is interiorization of the world, and, in
          a
          > sense, presence of the world to itself. When I touch velvet, what I
          > make exist is neither a velvet that is absolute and in itself nor a
          > velvet relative to some sort of structure superimposed [structure de
          > survol] by a transmundane consciousness. I make velvet exist for
          > flesh. Food is manifested in the world as food to a being in the
          midst
          > of the world. Therefore it is an absolute quality. The reality
          > therefore is that the being manifests truth is in the world, is of
          the
          > world, and is in danger in the world. The reality is that the
          > illuminator can be destroyed (or strengthened or overcome) by what
          it
          > illuminates. This belonging to the world of truth, or Realty, can
          also
          > be defined as the fact that truth is experienced or lived. In a
          sense,
          > all truth is lived as danger, effort, risk (even a 'scientific'
          truth)
          > and, conversely, all that is lived (in rage, fear, shame, love,
          > flight, good or bad faith), manifests Truth."
          >
          > TRUTH AND EXISTENCE by Jean-Paul Sartre
          > © The University of Chicago Press, 1992
          > First published Éditions Gallimard 1989
          > Written by Jean-Paul Sartre 1948
          > Original text established and annotated by Arlette Elkaïm-Sartre
          > Translated by Adrian van den Hoven
          > Edited and with an Introduction by Ronald Aronson
          >
          > Mary
          >

          Mary,

          The quoted extract is very interesting, but appears to leave open the
          question which from an existential perspective demands to be asked,
          namely, FOR WHOM does this Truth manifest, for oneself, or the
          other? What is knowledge, if it is only knowledge of one's own
          perceptions, whether that perception claim to be knowledge of one's
          own or someone else's truth? My own primary concern is with honesty,
          since without honesty truth is a useless concept. The brute fact
          about life on this planet is that political and scientific forces are
          able to restrict access to information needful for thinking in a
          realistically honest way. At least, such is a socially responsible
          way of reflecting on the matter. I suppose that from a social point
          of view I am severely handicapped, in being incredulous at how social
          the 'ordinary person' conceives truth to be. Social truth seems to
          me more like conspiracy. Then 'they' can just get together and call
          me autistic, or whatever.

          Louise
        • bhvwd
          ... and ... what ... our ... a ... midst ... the ... it ... also ... sense, ... truth) ... write: Bury your shit deep, then try to sleep. The wind owns the
          Message 4 of 11 , May 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.jo11" <ophiuchus@...> wrote:
            >
            > "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
            >
            > > There are many questions here,
            > > including the basic ones of, what is the self, what is the mind,
            and
            > > what is deception. Coming back to the old chestnut, of course,
            what
            > > is truth??
            > >
            > > Louise
            >
            > Recently I shared drinks with the lovely ladies of our local VFW
            > auxiliary, and we discussed many truths, from how to send gifts to
            our
            > soldiers in the war zones to why certain men are idiots ;) Truth is
            > relative to human activity, and according to Sartre, truth is
            experience:
            >
            > "The world appears to a being in the midst of the world: the
            > conditions of appearance of the In-itself are defined by the
            > In-itself. Thus perception is interiorization of the world, and, in
            a
            > sense, presence of the world to itself. When I touch velvet, what I
            > make exist is neither a velvet that is absolute and in itself nor a
            > velvet relative to some sort of structure superimposed [structure de
            > survol] by a transmundane consciousness. I make velvet exist for
            > flesh. Food is manifested in the world as food to a being in the
            midst
            > of the world. Therefore it is an absolute quality. The reality
            > therefore is that the being manifests truth is in the world, is of
            the
            > world, and is in danger in the world. The reality is that the
            > illuminator can be destroyed (or strengthened or overcome) by what
            it
            > illuminates. This belonging to the world of truth, or Realty, can
            also
            > be defined as the fact that truth is experienced or lived. In a
            sense,
            > all truth is lived as danger, effort, risk (even a 'scientific'
            truth)
            > and, conversely, all that is lived (in rage, fear, shame, love,
            > flight, good or bad faith), manifests Truth."
            >
            > TRUTH AND EXISTENCE by Jean-Paul Sartre
            > © The University of Chicago Press, 1992
            > First published Éditions Gallimard 1989
            > Written by Jean-Paul Sartre 1948
            > Original text established and annotated by Arlette Elkaïm-Sartre
            > Translated by Adrian van den Hoven
            > Edited and with an Introduction by Ronald Aronson
            >
            > Mary
            >So beautiful , Mary. I read it to Priscilla . It fired me up to
            write: "Bury your shit deep, then try to sleep. The wind owns the
            comfort of rest"Bill
          • mary.jo11
            ... Excellent. Reminds me of these words from Bright Eyes: Hear the chimes, did you know that the wind when it blows It is older than Rome and all of this
            Message 5 of 11 , May 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:

              > >So beautiful , Mary. I read it to Priscilla . It fired me up to
              > write: "Bury your shit deep, then try to sleep. The wind owns the
              > comfort of rest"Bill

              Excellent. Reminds me of these words from Bright Eyes:

              "Hear the chimes, did you know that the wind when it blows
              It is older than Rome and all of this sorrow . . .

              The Bible's blind, the Torah's deaf, the Qur'an's mute
              If you burned them all together you'd get close to the truth still
              They're pouring over Sanskrit on the Ivy League moons
              While shadows lengthen in the sun
              Cast all the school and meditation built to soften the times
              And hold us at the center while the spiral unwinds
              It's knocking over fences crossing property lines
              Four Winds, cry until it comes"
            • mary.jo11
              Louise, In Sartre s epistemology, Truth exists, is unveiled, revealed, pointed out, and verified by one For-itself to another For-itself. Truth is a shared
              Message 6 of 11 , May 4, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Louise,

                In Sartre's epistemology, Truth exists, is unveiled, revealed, pointed
                out, and verified by one For-itself to another For-itself. Truth is a
                shared experience, undertaken in freedom with responsibility toward
                other. Truth is action/experience toward something together.

                Dishonesty is misrepresentation with personal/moral and social/legal
                implications, but it exists, is real/true when it is shared. It is
                verifiable by another witness. Truth/Reality doesn't exist in a
                vacuum. That is merely contemplation/innocence/ignorance or the
                refusal of freedom/responsiblilty to know. Dishonesty is verifiable,
                or at least a conclusion may be reached by the observer/knower.

                Mary

                "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

                > Mary,
                >
                > The quoted extract is very interesting, but appears to leave open the
                > question which from an existential perspective demands to be asked,
                > namely, FOR WHOM does this Truth manifest, for oneself, or the
                > other? What is knowledge, if it is only knowledge of one's own
                > perceptions, whether that perception claim to be knowledge of one's
                > own or someone else's truth? My own primary concern is with honesty,
                > since without honesty truth is a useless concept. The brute fact
                > about life on this planet is that political and scientific forces are
                > able to restrict access to information needful for thinking in a
                > realistically honest way. At least, such is a socially responsible
                > way of reflecting on the matter. I suppose that from a social point
                > of view I am severely handicapped, in being incredulous at how social
                > the 'ordinary person' conceives truth to be. Social truth seems to
                > me more like conspiracy. Then 'they' can just get together and call
                > me autistic, or whatever.
                >
                > Louise
                >
              • louise
                ... pointed ... a ... May I ask, then, what, if any, are the qualifications required by the observer/knower, in order that the conclusions reached may be
                Message 7 of 11 , May 5, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.jo11" <ophiuchus@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Louise,
                  >
                  > In Sartre's epistemology, Truth exists, is unveiled, revealed,
                  pointed
                  > out, and verified by one For-itself to another For-itself. Truth is
                  a
                  > shared experience, undertaken in freedom with responsibility toward
                  > other. Truth is action/experience toward something together.
                  >
                  > Dishonesty is misrepresentation with personal/moral and social/legal
                  > implications, but it exists, is real/true when it is shared. It is
                  > verifiable by another witness. Truth/Reality doesn't exist in a
                  > vacuum. That is merely contemplation/innocence/ignorance or the
                  > refusal of freedom/responsiblilty to know. Dishonesty is verifiable,
                  > or at least a conclusion may be reached by the observer/knower.
                  >
                  > Mary

                  May I ask, then, what, if any, are the qualifications required by the
                  observer/knower, in order that the conclusions reached may be
                  adjudged more honest/reliable than the alleged misrepresentations
                  perpetrated by the putative accused? Return once more to questions
                  of Enlightenment values, I suppose. This is all Socratic territory,
                  isn't it? What is knowing? How do you know? Enquired the vanishing
                  cartoon cat. I really am unsure how to discuss these matters,
                  especially with yourself, Mary, because it seems that we have got
                  to 'know' each other a little too well. Louise

                  >
                  > "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Mary,
                  > >
                  > > The quoted extract is very interesting, but appears to leave open
                  the
                  > > question which from an existential perspective demands to be
                  asked,
                  > > namely, FOR WHOM does this Truth manifest, for oneself, or the
                  > > other? What is knowledge, if it is only knowledge of one's own
                  > > perceptions, whether that perception claim to be knowledge of
                  one's
                  > > own or someone else's truth? My own primary concern is with
                  honesty,
                  > > since without honesty truth is a useless concept. The brute fact
                  > > about life on this planet is that political and scientific forces
                  are
                  > > able to restrict access to information needful for thinking in a
                  > > realistically honest way. At least, such is a socially
                  responsible
                  > > way of reflecting on the matter. I suppose that from a social
                  point
                  > > of view I am severely handicapped, in being incredulous at how
                  social
                  > > the 'ordinary person' conceives truth to be. Social truth seems
                  to
                  > > me more like conspiracy. Then 'they' can just get together and
                  call
                  > > me autistic, or whatever.
                  > >
                  > > Louise
                  > >
                  >
                • mary.jo11
                  louise wrote: What is knowing? How do you know? From Ronald Aronson s introduction to Sartre s TRUTH AND EXISTENCE: ...it would seem that
                  Message 8 of 11 , May 6, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

                    What is knowing? How do you know?

                    From Ronald Aronson's introduction to Sartre's TRUTH AND EXISTENCE:

                    "...it would seem that Sartre has in mind not bare sense-perception
                    but the more complex and sophisticated process of perception aided by
                    instruments and guided by a theory. Indeed, Galileo's insight went
                    contrary to the evidence of unaided perception. To see, then, may be
                    to see an aspect of material reality, but it is to be guided by the
                    vision of an individual who is able to "unveil" it for us using
                    whatever perceptual and theoretical aids are available. No matter what
                    the qualification may be, Sartre has in mind a direct—therefore
                    individual, therefore absolute, but nonetheless true—vision of the
                    unveiled being. Based on Galileo's experience, I can have my own
                    personal experience, but this is not at all "a non-revelatory and
                    purely subjective epiphenomenon." Rather it is at one and the same
                    time "my" truth, "truth become for the other," and universal truth. It
                    always begins with an individual subject who has this direct
                    experience of Being—even if the experience includes my history,
                    environment, character, "a certain horizon of values, ends, and
                    signification."

                    "...How can I know that what I see in this way is so? Only by
                    intuition, that is, in the direct and personal experience of the
                    subjectivity that wills to see reality. How can I verify that this is
                    so? Only by offering it to others, as a gift. And as soon as they
                    experience it themselves, they go beyond my truth. "Proof," if we may
                    use that word, is based on good faith towards Being, the choice to see
                    it; therefore it turns on the will to see Being, to refuse ignorance,
                    and to take responsibility for what we have seen. Beyond this, no
                    proof is necessary, because truth depends on each individual's direct
                    intuition: there is."

                    "As we already know, one of the central themes of Sartrean bad faith
                    is wanting to hide from or avoid the truth, or refusing to take
                    responsibility for it. What matters in the Sartrean ethics of truth is
                    not really intelligence, or rigorous proof, or reasoning, because in
                    fact it is really not difficult to see what is. Granted, truth is
                    never merely given to us, it takes work. But Sartrean truth still
                    demands no explanation; without blinding ourselves through ignorance—a
                    deliberate choice expressing a specific denial of reality for specific
                    reason—we all would see reality."

                    Mary
                  • jimstuart51
                    Mary, I really like these paragraphs summarizing Sartre s view of things. I agree with Sartre s account of how we can perceive things as they really are. Iris
                    Message 9 of 11 , May 6, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mary,

                      I really like these paragraphs summarizing Sartre's view of things.

                      I agree with Sartre's account of how we can perceive things as they
                      really are. Iris Murdoch was influenced by Sartre, and she argues
                      that when our acting and observing are infused with the virtues of
                      love and justice then we will see things objectively as they really
                      are.

                      So, we cannot prove to others that this is how things are – we just
                      have to encourage others to be in the right frame of mind to observe
                      the situation. And, of course, we have to be self-critical, asking
                      ourselves if we are in the right frame of mind to see things as they
                      truly are.

                      I particularly like what Aronson writes in the last paragraph you
                      quote:

                      "What matters in the Sartrean ethics of truth is not really
                      intelligence, or rigorous proof, or reasoning, because in fact it is
                      really not difficult to see what is. Granted, truth is never merely
                      given to us, it takes work. But Sartrean truth still demands no
                      explanation; without blinding ourselves through ignorance—a
                      deliberate choice expressing a specific denial of reality for
                      specific reason—we all would see reality."

                      Sartre's account of truth and our relation to reality is one of the
                      greatest achievements of the existentialist tradition, in my opinion,
                      certainly superior to anything the analytical tradition could muster
                      at the time.

                      Jim
                    • mary.jo11
                      Thanks, Jim. Or course it s not quite that simple since Sartre crams a complex logic into a mere 80 pages. I highly recommend this book, written between Being
                      Message 10 of 11 , May 7, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks, Jim. Or course it's not quite that simple since Sartre crams a
                        complex logic into a mere 80 pages. I highly recommend this book,
                        written between Being And Nothingness and Critique Of Dialectical
                        Reasoning. I haven't read either of them, so his terminology is a
                        little circuitous and daunting. The most pleasant surprise is his
                        foundation of scientific phenomenology. Objects exists, and objective
                        truth exists. A human being is a free consciousness toward the
                        unveiling of truth; but it's a subjective experience, shared and
                        progressively verified. Truth And Existence seems quite thorough. It's
                        my summer project :)

                        "jimstuart51" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Mary,
                        >
                        > I really like these paragraphs summarizing Sartre's view of things.
                        >
                        > I agree with Sartre's account of how we can perceive things as they
                        > really are. Iris Murdoch was influenced by Sartre, and she argues
                        > that when our acting and observing are infused with the virtues of
                        > love and justice then we will see things objectively as they really
                        > are.
                        >
                        > So, we cannot prove to others that this is how things are – we just
                        > have to encourage others to be in the right frame of mind to observe
                        > the situation. And, of course, we have to be self-critical, asking
                        > ourselves if we are in the right frame of mind to see things as they
                        > truly are.
                        >
                        > I particularly like what Aronson writes in the last paragraph you
                        > quote:
                        >
                        > "What matters in the Sartrean ethics of truth is not really
                        > intelligence, or rigorous proof, or reasoning, because in fact it is
                        > really not difficult to see what is. Granted, truth is never merely
                        > given to us, it takes work. But Sartrean truth still demands no
                        > explanation; without blinding ourselves through ignorance—a
                        > deliberate choice expressing a specific denial of reality for
                        > specific reason—we all would see reality."
                        >
                        > Sartre's account of truth and our relation to reality is one of the
                        > greatest achievements of the existentialist tradition, in my opinion,
                        > certainly superior to anything the analytical tradition could muster
                        > at the time.
                        >
                        > Jim
                        >
                      • jimstuart51
                        Thanks for the extra information, Mary. I ll look out for the book - 80 pages sounds more manageable than the 500-odd pages of Being and Nothingness. Jim ...
                        Message 11 of 11 , May 7, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thanks for the extra information, Mary.

                          I'll look out for the book - 80 pages sounds more manageable than the
                          500-odd pages of Being and Nothingness.

                          Jim


                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.jo11" <ophiuchus@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Thanks, Jim. Or course it's not quite that simple since Sartre
                          crams a
                          > complex logic into a mere 80 pages. I highly recommend this book,
                          > written between Being And Nothingness and Critique Of Dialectical
                          > Reasoning. I haven't read either of them, so his terminology is a
                          > little circuitous and daunting. The most pleasant surprise is his
                          > foundation of scientific phenomenology. Objects exists, and
                          objective
                          > truth exists. A human being is a free consciousness toward the
                          > unveiling of truth; but it's a subjective experience, shared and
                          > progressively verified. Truth And Existence seems quite thorough.
                          It's
                          > my summer project :)
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.