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

Re: Subversion

Expand Messages
  • louise
    ... and ... what ... our ... a ... midst ... the ... it ... also ... sense, ... truth) ... Mary, The quoted extract is very interesting, but appears to leave
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.