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

Re: Subversion

Expand Messages
  • 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 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
      >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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.