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

Re: a definition of the absurd

Expand Messages
  • jimstuart51
    Dear Living Breathing Human Being, You wish to oppose the existential idea that everything is completely purposeless . Your argument is that because we human
    Message 1 of 21 , Jul 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Living Breathing Human Being,

      You wish to oppose the existential idea that "everything is completely
      purposeless". Your argument is that because we human beings construct
      meaning, then there must be meaning inherent in the universe:

      "More importantly, there is a relationship between what is constructed
      inside the mind and the intelligible order outside and beyond the
      mind; just as there is a relationship between perception and reality;
      the order constructed in the mind at minimum reflects, relates to and
      represents 'a real existential order' outside and autonomous to the mind."

      I am not convinced that your argument is sound.

      For a start to say that the universe is "purposeless" is not quite the
      same as saying that it contains no meaning.

      When I say that the universe is purposeless, I am saying that it is
      not heading towards an ultimate telos. I think that saying this is
      consistent with your view (correct in my opinion) that human beings
      are meaning-constructing beings – we have the ability through our
      commitments, resolutions and passions to give our lives an overall
      structure and overall meaning. Arguably the person who cannot manage
      to do this is the person is despair.

      I think that life, the universe, is intrinsically absurd in that there
      is no ultimate rhyme nor reason to anything. However we can give our
      lives meaning. The existentialist idea is that we both create the
      meaning that comes to exist in our lives, and we create ourselves
      through our choices, commitments and resolutions.

      I don't think you are correct to conclude that reality is inherently
      meaningful (has an intelligible order), just because we create meaning
      for ourselves. If we "construct" something, we are making it out of
      lower-level materials, which lack the structure of the construct. If
      meaning is there outside us, autonomous of our mental activity, then
      talk of "constructing" seems inappropriate. In this case, words such
      as "seeing", "recognising" or "interpreting" would be more appropriate.

      Jim
    • Aija Veldre Beldavs
      ... hopeless entanglement in semantics?:) if there are no patterns (rhyme or reason) within the cosmos, how is there communication, & talking about absurdity
      Message 2 of 21 , Jul 29, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        > I think that life, the universe, is intrinsically absurd in that there
        > is no ultimate rhyme nor reason to anything. However we can give our
        > lives meaning. The existentialist idea is that we both create the
        > meaning that comes to exist in our lives, and we create ourselves
        > through our choices, commitments and resolutions.

        > Jim

        hopeless entanglement in semantics?:)
        if there are no patterns (rhyme or reason) within the cosmos, how is
        there communication, & talking about absurdity on a listserv stuck
        around the timespace of a few of its heroes means what?
        not only kaleidescopes have shifting patterns.
        what is absurdity in a universe with both laws & indeterminacy when it's
        exciting to be exploring entanglement within electromagnetic fields?

        aija
      • Jewel
        Dear Lucky To Be Alive, This morning while reading all these excellent comments, I ve had an epiphany! Do you think perhaps the absurd person generalizes,
        Message 3 of 21 , Jul 29, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Lucky To Be Alive,

          This morning while reading all these excellent comments, I've had an
          epiphany! Do you think perhaps the absurd person generalizes,
          objectifies, and projects his own interior state onto the world ;-)

          What convinces you that you freely choose your dispassionate,
          reasonable approach? And why is it more responsible? And if you
          haven't the power to universally "apply" your perspective/solution to
          everyone else, it too appears to be an absurd conclusion. Other
          aspects of Camus's absurd are the impossible and the ridiculous.

          Reason has been a fortunate by-product in my life, but passion might
          have been a wiser chisel. That is if you're into that whole creating,
          molding, shaping, and influencing others thingy.

          Jewel
        • jimstuart51
          There are patterns in the universe - scientists identify them, ordinary human beings identify them (e.g. approaching black clouds indicate rain will come
          Message 4 of 21 , Jul 29, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            There are patterns in the universe - scientists identify them,
            ordinary human beings identify them (e.g. approaching black clouds
            indicate rain will come soon).

            There is no rhyme nor reason to the universe in the sense that there
            is no God in control, and nature is "blind". It is a matter of "luck"
            that I was born a healthy individual, whilst my sister was born with a
            genetic disorder.

            Jim

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
            wrote:
            >
            >
            > > I think that life, the universe, is intrinsically absurd in that there
            > > is no ultimate rhyme nor reason to anything. However we can give our
            > > lives meaning. The existentialist idea is that we both create the
            > > meaning that comes to exist in our lives, and we create ourselves
            > > through our choices, commitments and resolutions.
            >
            > > Jim
            >
            > hopeless entanglement in semantics?:)
            > if there are no patterns (rhyme or reason) within the cosmos, how is
            > there communication, & talking about absurdity on a listserv stuck
            > around the timespace of a few of its heroes means what?
            > not only kaleidescopes have shifting patterns.
            > what is absurdity in a universe with both laws & indeterminacy when
            it's
            > exciting to be exploring entanglement within electromagnetic fields?
            >
            > aija
            >
          • ccorey@frontiernet.net
            You know and do not know, what it is to act or suffer. You know and do not know, that action is suffering, And suffering action. Niether does the agent suffer
            Message 5 of 21 , Jul 29, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              You know and do not know, what it is to act or
              suffer.
              You know and do not know, that action is suffering,
              And suffering action. Niether does the agent suffer
              Nor the patient act. Both are fixed
              In an eternal action, an eternal patience
              To which all must consent that it may be willed
              And which all must suffer that they may will it,
              That the pattern may subsist, that th wheel may
              turn and still
              Be forever still.

              -T.S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral


              Quoting jimstuart51 <jjimstuart1@...>:

              > There are patterns in the universe - scientists identify them,
              > ordinary human beings identify them (e.g. approaching black clouds
              > indicate rain will come soon).
              >
              > There is no rhyme nor reason to the universe in the sense that there
              > is no God in control, and nature is "blind". It is a matter of "luck"
              > that I was born a healthy individual, whilst my sister was born with a
              > genetic disorder.
              >
              > Jim
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
              > wrote:
              >>
              >>
              >> > I think that life, the universe, is intrinsically absurd in that there
              >> > is no ultimate rhyme nor reason to anything. However we can give our
              >> > lives meaning. The existentialist idea is that we both create the
              >> > meaning that comes to exist in our lives, and we create ourselves
              >> > through our choices, commitments and resolutions.
              >>
              >> > Jim
              >>
              >> hopeless entanglement in semantics?:)
              >> if there are no patterns (rhyme or reason) within the cosmos, how is
              >> there communication, & talking about absurdity on a listserv stuck
              >> around the timespace of a few of its heroes means what?
              >> not only kaleidescopes have shifting patterns.
              >> what is absurdity in a universe with both laws & indeterminacy when
              > it's
              >> exciting to be exploring entanglement within electromagnetic fields?
              >>
              >> aija
              >>
              >
              >
              >



              Christopher Corey
              Freedom is Existence
            • camusj
              On Jul 28, 2008, at 6:04:39 PM, a_living_breathing_being wrote: From: a_living_breathing_being
              Message 6 of 21 , Jul 29, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                On Jul 28, 2008, at 6:04:39 PM, a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...> wrote:
                From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>
                Subject: [existlist] a definition of the absurd
                Date: July 28, 2008 6:04:39 PM EDT
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Most people who exercise their mind in the endeavor of philosophy do
                so by constructing 'meaning' (and by the use of language); and this
                suggest that the very activity of philosophy accentuates and actually
                supports a bias towards 'there-being-meaning'; dasein + meaning. 
                Absurdity never entirely wins out because philosophically minded
                people keep on fighting and striving to comprehend all the meaning
                that there-is; yes . . . every time we turn-on-the-brain to explain
                something; the be-ing and the think-ing of the mind revolts. I mean,
                how many of us want life, the world and the cosmos to ultimately have
                an intrinsically ridiculous quality, that in the end (telos), after
                all is finished, life is completely pointless and absurd? Still, some
                existential thinkers demand that everything is altogether, completely
                purposeless; and it is this very point, and IMHO, I do not accept it.

                Language itself is a 'taxis' (order); not so much a means for
                constructing external physical order, but a tool of the mind, the
                means by which the mind constructs meaning and orders within itself
                and for-itself; i.e., a mental order that reflects the very
                intelligible outer order already there. The fact that each human
                being creates meaning and order within their own mind does not mean
                that 'intelligibility' is a fickel exclusive by-product of the mind. 
                The prevailing notion of absurdity suggest that everything (omni) is
                meaningless and unintelligible.

                Look at a single living cell and it turns out to be an elaborate and
                intelligible code; which is why scientist are able to map the genome.
                The fact that the mind is an ordering, organizing, pattern seeking,
                arranging and gathering entity demonstrates by itself that our part of
                the cosmos is not clearly devoid of meaning; unless you believe that
                philosophers are not teleological manifestations of the cosmos :-)

                The fact that meaning springs up within the human mind, shows that
                meaning-itself has manifested within the known spectrum of being; our
                ontological grasp of it. More importantly, there is a relationship
                between what is constructed inside the mind and the intelligible order
                outside and beyond the mind; just as there is a relationship between
                perception and reality; the order constructed in the mind at minimum
                reflects, relates to and represents 'a real existential order' outside
                and autonomous to the mind. That is, the intelligible existential
                condition meets the intelligence-seeking mind. This does not
                eliminate chaos and disorder, but we need not conclude that the
                primary description of human existence is summed up by the
                over-estimated word 'absurd'.

                There is a relationship between two immediate conditions; epistemic
                mental representations (ideas, beliefs, descriptions) and ontical
                presentation (the raw, brute existential realities) or the immediate
                ontical condition; the preceeding hostile forces around the individual
                that Sartre claimed was superior to Essence.

                Well, there you have it. I'm truely ready to be chewed up, spit out
                and set straight.



                Hello

                I have read philosophy and philosophised (is that a word?) for many years.
                While others might find meaning in the world as they encounter it, I do not.
                The human being seems, IMHO, poorly suited to the world he inhabits.

                My impression of the "absurd" is that it is a zone, which I stand on the very edge of, each time I meet an impenitrable, uncontrollable point.
                I am speaking, of course, in a metaphysical sense.  I dont find everything "absurb", but I do not construct "meaning" in my searches. Having scientists explain, and even make sense of what they find, is admirable and useful.  But for me at least, that is all it does.

                I would agree that the mind can be a pattern finding, organizing device, but that said, not always accurate or benificent.
                Hitler thought he had discerned "meaning" in his theories of the value of humans, but he was, IMHO, quite wrong.

                There is something wholly inadequate in our minds.  It results in a lack of ability to understand any purpose we may have, and insufficient faculties to devine that purpose may be.  As I see it, there are two (perhaps more) conclusions. The first is that we are an accident, a gift of our rather good memory, and the second is that we are just too stupid to figure the world out.

                Jessie


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • a_living_breathing_being
                Jim said: You wish to oppose the existential idea that everything is completely purposeless . Your argument is that because we human beings construct meaning,
                Message 7 of 21 , Jul 29, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jim said: "You wish to oppose the existential idea that everything is
                  completely purposeless". Your argument is that because we human beings
                  construct meaning, then there must be meaning inherent in the universe"

                  A.L.B.B. Well, no, (not meaning) . . . but 'intelligible order' is
                  inherent. I'm differentiating between 'intelligence' (the end product
                  of mental activity) and intelligibility (the actual logical patterns
                  present within complex object) such as atoms and living cells that
                  demonstrate intelligent order. It has been convenient to believe that
                  the complexity of order present in the cosmos is the product of 14
                  billion years of chance; a blind deterministic mechanism with the
                  random accidental luck at forming itself into organized orderly
                  states. Wow! That's about as far-fetched as thinking that if I throw
                  a handful of pebbels down on a ground again and agin, given enough
                  time, then one day it will spell out the Homers Illiad.

                  The living human cell is intelligible, that is, within itself, it
                  possesses a profound orderliness and pattern, an organized complexity
                  that is knowable by the human mind; so . . . from this intrinsic order
                  outside and all around us, it follows that the order-seeking mind is
                  able to reflect and construct meaning that serves the overall
                  expectation of there-being-intelligent-order actually present. This
                  expresses that there is both order in the mind and order all around.
                  This has been the fundamental assunmption within those who build
                  todays technology, that both the mind and the natural order can be
                  understood, that brute existential force can be shaped into formal
                  causes, that existential materials are capable of teleological aims
                  and ambition, that the mind is suitable to foresee these
                  potentialities and bring them about. But while this reflects the
                  human aspect, the cosmos was already here before us, organizing
                  itself. But chaos, freedom and potentiality are still part of the
                  binary system; a polarized condition where both order and chaos
                  express the complete picture; just and 'being' and 'nothingness'
                  likewise express two existential extremes. And in my system of
                  thinking, order has ever bit as much respect as chaos. While we
                  confine meaning to human construction, we cannot claim the same for
                  the presence of order.

                  I make the distinction between meaning and actual order. A living
                  cell's intelligibility is complimentary to the human mind's propensity
                  for organizing, knowing, understanding and perceiving states of order;
                  this is how the order-seeking mind is connected to the actual order
                  already present. But, oddly, meaning expresses order and is the end
                  result of order-making. The order of meaning is counter-complimentary
                  to the intrinsic order around us. In the binary opposites of Order
                  and Chaos; order is given the favor and thought to be 'the good'.

                  A Living Breathing Being
                • jimstuart51
                  Dear Living Breathing Being, I agree with you that there is an intelligible order in nature which we can discern, and we can represent in our language and
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jul 29, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Living Breathing Being,

                    I agree with you that there is an "intelligible order" in nature
                    which we can discern, and we can represent in our language and
                    thought.

                    But I think this idea - which I would guess we would all agree with -
                    is consistent with the existential claim that there is no purpose to
                    the ever changing universe.

                    Yes, it is because things do behave in recognisable patterns that we
                    are able - to some extent - to plan our lives, and to be responsible
                    for our actions. But this is possible even though there is no
                    ultimate telos in the universe as a whole.

                    Unlike you, I do believe in the "far-fetched" idea that the order
                    around us now is the result of "14 billion years of chance", of "a
                    blind deterministic mechanism".

                    Jim



                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "a_living_breathing_being"
                    <a_living_breathing_being@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Jim said: "You wish to oppose the existential idea that everything
                    is
                    > completely purposeless". Your argument is that because we human
                    beings
                    > construct meaning, then there must be meaning inherent in the
                    universe"
                    >
                    > A.L.B.B. Well, no, (not meaning) . . . but 'intelligible order' is
                    > inherent. I'm differentiating between 'intelligence' (the end
                    product
                    > of mental activity) and intelligibility (the actual logical patterns
                    > present within complex object) such as atoms and living cells that
                    > demonstrate intelligent order. It has been convenient to believe
                    that
                    > the complexity of order present in the cosmos is the product of 14
                    > billion years of chance; a blind deterministic mechanism with the
                    > random accidental luck at forming itself into organized orderly
                    > states. Wow! That's about as far-fetched as thinking that if I
                    throw
                    > a handful of pebbels down on a ground again and agin, given enough
                    > time, then one day it will spell out the Homers Illiad.
                    >
                    > The living human cell is intelligible, that is, within itself, it
                    > possesses a profound orderliness and pattern, an organized
                    complexity
                    > that is knowable by the human mind; so . . . from this intrinsic
                    order
                    > outside and all around us, it follows that the order-seeking mind is
                    > able to reflect and construct meaning that serves the overall
                    > expectation of there-being-intelligent-order actually present. This
                    > expresses that there is both order in the mind and order all
                    around.
                    > This has been the fundamental assunmption within those who build
                    > todays technology, that both the mind and the natural order can be
                    > understood, that brute existential force can be shaped into formal
                    > causes, that existential materials are capable of teleological aims
                    > and ambition, that the mind is suitable to foresee these
                    > potentialities and bring them about. But while this reflects the
                    > human aspect, the cosmos was already here before us, organizing
                    > itself. But chaos, freedom and potentiality are still part of the
                    > binary system; a polarized condition where both order and chaos
                    > express the complete picture; just and 'being' and 'nothingness'
                    > likewise express two existential extremes. And in my system of
                    > thinking, order has ever bit as much respect as chaos. While we
                    > confine meaning to human construction, we cannot claim the same for
                    > the presence of order.
                    >
                    > I make the distinction between meaning and actual order. A living
                    > cell's intelligibility is complimentary to the human mind's
                    propensity
                    > for organizing, knowing, understanding and perceiving states of
                    order;
                    > this is how the order-seeking mind is connected to the actual order
                    > already present. But, oddly, meaning expresses order and is the end
                    > result of order-making. The order of meaning is counter-
                    complimentary
                    > to the intrinsic order around us. In the binary opposites of Order
                    > and Chaos; order is given the favor and thought to be 'the good'.
                    >
                    > A Living Breathing Being
                    >
                  • a_living_breathing_being
                    ... nature which we can discern, and we can represent in our language and ... A.L.B.B. Francis Collins who headed the Genome project refered to the complex
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jul 30, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Jim said: I agree with you that there is an "intelligible order" in
                      nature which we can discern, and we can represent in our language and
                      > thought.
                      >
                      > But I think this idea - which I would guess we would all agree with -
                      > is consistent with the existential claim that there is no purpose to
                      > the ever changing universe.
                      >
                      > Yes, it is because things do behave in recognisable patterns that we
                      > are able - to some extent - to plan our lives, and to be responsible
                      > for our actions. But this is possible even though there is no
                      > ultimate telos in the universe as a whole.
                      >
                      > Unlike you, I do believe in the "far-fetched" idea that the order
                      > around us now is the result of "14 billion years of chance", of "a
                      > blind deterministic mechanism".
                      >
                      ---------

                      A.L.B.B. Francis Collins who headed the Genome project refered to
                      the complex DNA sequence as "the language of God"; and by the way, not
                      all existential thought is atheistic, there was a handful of theistic
                      existential thinker. Even if one rejects every organized religion,
                      and especially Christianty, does not mean that a higher intelligence
                      is utterly out of the question. Part of the judgement that the
                      universe is purposeless and without aim is built squarely on the
                      premise that 'out there' and even subatomically, nothing intelligent
                      is-there. Of course, there is a good case for evolution, which I
                      accept. Still, this does not remove the possibility that something
                      intelligent governs the order occuring in living cells. Evolution may
                      be part of the causual system, yet tradition, human experience and
                      sacred documents have given deistic and theistic explaination (atias).
                      This may be an anthropomorphic leap, but backtracking from 'end
                      outcomes', back to the material quantum that shapes reality as we know
                      it, there must have been efficient factors contributing to the
                      ordering, and there must have been preceeding patterns; and with that
                      said, an 'intelligence factor' does not seem out of the question.
                      Otherwise everyone would be indebted to serve the atheistic
                      perspective; and Richard Dawkins would deserve a standing ovation for
                      pointing out that God is only a delusion.

                      Approaching the subject of a higher intelligence responsible for the
                      coincidence of order, we do so from a rational perspective, which I am
                      given to as a project. However, the universe is mysterious, and
                      Superstring theorist say that there are 6 other unknown dimensions;
                      not simply 4. Mayby it's not just the bleak / opaque appearance of
                      space and time, but the expression and presence of an intelligence
                      factor. It may very well be that it is atheism that is in bad faith,
                      i.e., believing in something that is not true.
                      >
                    • a_living_breathing_being
                      Jessie: I have read philosophy and philosophised (is that a word?) for many years. While others might find meaning in the world as they encounter it, I do
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jul 30, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jessie: I have read philosophy and philosophised (is that a word?)
                        for many years. While others might find meaning in the world as they
                        encounter it, I do not. The human being seems, IMHO, poorly suited to
                        the world he inhabits.

                        A.L.B.B. Hi Jessie, It would seem to me that if you did not find
                        meaning in the world, does that also mean that you do not find it
                        within yourself either. I suppose some clarification is in order.
                        Objects, such as a hammer or chair do not possess any intrinsic
                        meaning. The ability you and I have to understand these objects and
                        the world around us occurs in the dynamic processes of the mind and
                        organic sensations and are then psychologically assigned to the
                        realities we experience. So, I think I agree with you that there is
                        no meaning in the world. I guess this goes to say that human beings,
                        through the capacity of their mind, are the principle carriers of
                        meaning. Meaning serves a very human function.
                        >
                        Jessie: I would agree that the mind can be a pattern finding,
                        organizing device, but that said, not always accurate or benificent.
                        > Hitler thought he had discerned "meaning" in his theories of the
                        value of humans, but he was, IMHO, quite wrong.

                        A.L.B.B. Yes, that is for sure.
                      • ccorey@frontiernet.net
                        How is it you have been studying philosophy for ?many? years but can?t use the word ?philosophy? in a sentence? I think You are a Firstnighter, Informer, Old
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jul 31, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          How is it you have been studying philosophy for ?many? years but can?t
                          use the word ?philosophy? in a sentence? I think You are a
                          Firstnighter, Informer, Old Fruit, Yellow Whigger, Wheateater, Goldy
                          Geit, Bongside Beauty, York?s Porker, Funny face, Opendoor Ospice,
                          Cainandabler, Godsoilman, Blau Clay, and a Tight before teatime! Go
                          Read Your Pantojoke ? ?FW?...then return...

                          -c-


                          Quoting a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>:

                          > Jessie: I have read philosophy and philosophised (is that a word?)
                          > for many years. While others might find meaning in the world as they
                          > encounter it, I do not. The human being seems, IMHO, poorly suited to
                          > the world he inhabits.
                          >
                          > A.L.B.B. Hi Jessie, It would seem to me that if you did not find
                          > meaning in the world, does that also mean that you do not find it
                          > within yourself either. I suppose some clarification is in order.
                          > Objects, such as a hammer or chair do not possess any intrinsic
                          > meaning. The ability you and I have to understand these objects and
                          > the world around us occurs in the dynamic processes of the mind and
                          > organic sensations and are then psychologically assigned to the
                          > realities we experience. So, I think I agree with you that there is
                          > no meaning in the world. I guess this goes to say that human beings,
                          > through the capacity of their mind, are the principle carriers of
                          > meaning. Meaning serves a very human function.
                          >>
                          > Jessie: I would agree that the mind can be a pattern finding,
                          > organizing device, but that said, not always accurate or benificent.
                          >> Hitler thought he had discerned "meaning" in his theories of the
                          > value of humans, but he was, IMHO, quite wrong.
                          >
                          > A.L.B.B. Yes, that is for sure.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >



                          Christopher Corey
                          Freedom is Existence
                        • a_living_breathing_being
                          Christopher Corey said: How is it you have been studying philosophy for ?many? years but can?t use the word ?philosophy? in a sentence? I think You are a
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jul 31, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Christopher Corey said: How is it you have been studying philosophy
                            for ?many? years but can?t use the word ?philosophy? in a sentence? I
                            think You are a Firstnighter, Informer, Old Fruit, Yellow Whigger,
                            Wheateater, Goldy Geit, Bongside Beauty, York?s Porker, Funny face,
                            Opendoor Ospice, Cainandabler, Godsoilman, Blau Clay, and a Tight
                            before teatime! Go Read Your Pantojoke ? ?FW?...then return...

                            A.L.B.B. Funny stuff buddy, you have me laughing. However, I think
                            you mean it as an insult / put-down and not for sincere discussion.
                            That's OK, so we probably won't have much to talk about in the future.
                            Are you mentally ill? Best I can make of your made-up-words and
                            jive-talk is I knew a guy like you once, his name was bo-bo.
                          • camusj
                            On Jul 31, 2008, at 8:50:23 AM, ccorey@frontiernet.net wrote: From: ccorey@frontiernet.net Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: a definition of the absurd Date:
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jul 31, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Jul 31, 2008, at 8:50:23 AM, ccorey@... wrote:
                              From: ccorey@...
                              Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: a definition of the absurd
                              Date: July 31, 2008 8:50:23 AM EDT
                              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              How is it you have been studying philosophy for ?many? years but can?t 
                              use the word ?philosophy? in a sentence? I think You are a 
                              Firstnighter, Informer, Old Fruit, Yellow Whigger, Wheateater, Goldy 
                              Geit, Bongside Beauty, York?s Porker, Funny face, Opendoor Ospice, 
                              Cainandabler, Godsoilman, Blau Clay, and a Tight before teatime! Go 
                              Read Your Pantojoke ? ?FW?...then return...

                              -c-

                              Quoting a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>:

                              > Jessie: I have read philosophy and philosophised (is that a word?)
                              > for many years. While others might find meaning in the world as they
                              > encounter it, I do not. The human being seems, IMHO, poorly suited to
                              > the world he inhabits.
                              >
                              > A.L.B.B. Hi Jessie, It would seem to me that if you did not find
                              > meaning in the world, does that also mean that you do not find it
                              > within yourself either. I suppose some clarification is in order.
                              > Objects, such as a hammer or chair do not possess any intrinsic
                              > meaning. The ability you and I have to understand these objects and
                              > the world around us occurs in the dynamic processes of the mind and
                              > organic sensations and are then psychologically assigned to the
                              > realities we experience. So, I think I agree with you that there is
                              > no meaning in the world. I guess this goes to say that human beings,
                              > through the capacity of their mind, are the principle carriers of
                              > meaning. Meaning serves a very human function.
                              >>
                              > Jessie: I would agree that the mind can be a pattern finding,
                              > organizing device, but that said, not always accurate or benificent.
                              >> Hitler thought he had discerned "meaning" in his theories of the
                              > value of humans, but he was, IMHO, quite wrong.
                              >
                              > A.L.B.B. Yes, that is for sure.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >

                              Christopher Corey
                              Freedom is Existence



                              Hi Ciorey and all

                              I have no idea what you are saying. I am 68 years old and have been reading philosophy since I was 17.  I wont go any further.
                              I have no need to establish some kind of credential.  And I might well be an "old fruit", since I am a lesbian. I am enjoying reading others thoughts and following the discussion.

                              Jessie


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • camusj
                              On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:40:51 PM, a_living_breathing_being wrote: From: a_living_breathing_being
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jul 31, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:40:51 PM, a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...> wrote:
                                From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>
                                Subject: [existlist] Re: Firstnighter, Informer, Old Fruit, Funny face (you talk 'n about me?)
                                Date: July 31, 2008 5:40:51 PM EDT
                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                Christopher Corey said: How is it you have been studying philosophy
                                for ?many? years but can?t use the word ?philosophy? in a sentence? I
                                think You are a Firstnighter, Informer, Old Fruit, Yellow Whigger,
                                Wheateater, Goldy Geit, Bongside Beauty, York?s Porker, Funny face,
                                Opendoor Ospice, Cainandabler, Godsoilman, Blau Clay, and a Tight
                                before teatime! Go Read Your Pantojoke ? ?FW?...then return...

                                A.L.B.B. Funny stuff buddy, you have me laughing. However, I think
                                you mean it as an insult / put-down and not for sincere discussion. 
                                That's OK, so we probably won't have much to talk about in the future.
                                Are you mentally ill? Best I can make of your made-up-words and
                                jive-talk is I knew a guy like you once, his name was bo-bo.



                                Well, whoever you are (I dont see your name), thank you for your post. I was kind of lost at his response to my post.

                                Jessie



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Exist List Moderator
                                ... You will find few, maybe two or three, individuals on this forum adhering to any form of intelligent design / Creation faith. While I often caution against
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jul 31, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Jul 29, 2008, at 13:17, a_living_breathing_being wrote:

                                  > A.L.B.B. Well, no, (not meaning) . . . but 'intelligible order' is
                                  > inherent. I'm differentiating between 'intelligence' (the end product
                                  > of mental activity) and intelligibility (the actual logical patterns
                                  > present within complex object) such as atoms and living cells that
                                  > demonstrate intelligent order. It has been convenient to believe that
                                  > the complexity of order present in the cosmos is the product of 14
                                  > billion years of chance; a blind deterministic mechanism with the
                                  > random accidental luck at forming itself into organized orderly
                                  > states. Wow! That's about as far-fetched as thinking that if I throw
                                  > a handful of pebbels down on a ground again and agin, given enough
                                  > time, then one day it will spell out the Homers Illiad.



                                  You will find few, maybe two or three, individuals on this forum
                                  adhering to any form of intelligent design / Creation faith. While I
                                  often caution against ignoring the existential theists, who were far
                                  more influential than Sartre during most of the last century (Sartre's
                                  "rise" actually came in the 1970s and 80s), I also recognize that
                                  these men would not be embraced today. I cannot imagine my colleagues
                                  wanting to teach Buber, Tillich, May, Niebuhr, or others. We gloss
                                  over Kierkegaard's faith -- and it should be essential to
                                  understanding him.

                                  I think "chance" is precisely what we see in science, via chaos theory
                                  or even uncertainty. Everything is math, but so interconnected as to
                                  seem random. But, math has no "meaning" and no "values" -- it simply
                                  is. The human body is one of the worst designs in nature, but it works
                                  by chance, despite some serious flaws. Chance is the volcanos,
                                  meteors, orbital wobbles, and such that destroy species from time to
                                  time. And, eventually, the sun will destroy everything on this little
                                  marble of nothingness.

                                  We are frail creatures that can be felled by a tiny non-living virus.
                                  Our eyes have blind spots in the middle, where nerves illogically
                                  attach. A small little cord connects our brains to everything else --
                                  one snap results in death.

                                  Sorry, but unless the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation built humans,
                                  no "intelligence" could create with so many flaws. And no, I don't buy
                                  the notion the flaws are punishment for eating a fruit in an ancient
                                  garden.

                                  So faith is important and gave us many great leaders and thinkers. It
                                  also restrained progress throughout history. Faith is a mixed blessing
                                  -- pardon the pun.

                                  Religion is just a lousy, lousy topic for this mailing list. Most of
                                  us are ardently anti-religion, in part thanks to the messes created by
                                  faith in our current moment of existence. Sorry, but most religious
                                  texts are cruel, judgmental, and encourage various forms of violence
                                  -- at the least against "sinners" in the worst cases against all non-
                                  believers.

                                  Horrible topic unless you are going to discuss particular thinkers in
                                  existentialism or Continental thought.

                                  - 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
                                • Exist List Moderator
                                  ... They are all real terms, used in various literary and philosophical works. Most of the terms indicate a resistance to science, knowledge, or progress. I
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jul 31, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Jul 31, 2008, at 17:00, camusj wrote:

                                    > Cainandabler


                                    They are all real terms, used in various literary and philosophical
                                    works. Most of the terms indicate a resistance to science, knowledge,
                                    or progress. I was curious when I saw a term from Finnegan's Wake used
                                    on the mailing list. Wow.... a classic reference if ever there was one.

                                    In serious terms, the question is how science, philosophy, faith, et
                                    cetera all continue to coexist for people. There are those in the
                                    sciences (many at universities, definitely) who see diminishing roles
                                    for all but science and "reason" -- exactly what Heidegger warned of,
                                    before he ended up falling in line with the worst of "ordered" and
                                    "scientific" governments. (I love irony.)

                                    A valid question, and one those of us in the sciences try to either
                                    avoid or explain away... when what we need to remind ourselves if that
                                    information, knowledge, and invention are amoral and meaningless.
                                    Science doesn't tell us how to live, just that we do live.

                                    All very valid questions, and certainly not randomly made-up words.


                                    - 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
                                  • camusj
                                    On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:23:57 PM, a_living_breathing_being wrote: From: a_living_breathing_being
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jul 31, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:23:57 PM, a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...> wrote:
                                      From: a_living_breathing_being <a_living_breathing_being@...>
                                      Subject: [existlist] Re: a definition of the absurd
                                      Date: July 30, 2008 5:23:57 PM EDT
                                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      Jessie: I have read philosophy and philosophised (is that a word?)
                                      for many years. While others might find meaning in the world as they
                                      encounter it, I do not. The human being seems, IMHO, poorly suited to
                                      the world he inhabits.

                                      A.L.B.B. Hi Jessie, It would seem to me that if you did not find
                                      meaning in the world, does that also mean that you do not find it
                                      within yourself either. I suppose some clarification is in order. 
                                      Objects, such as a hammer or chair do not possess any intrinsic
                                      meaning. The ability you and I have to understand these objects and
                                      the world around us occurs in the dynamic processes of the mind and
                                      organic sensations and are then psychologically assigned to the
                                      realities we experience. So, I think I agree with you that there is
                                      no meaning in the world. I guess this goes to say that human beings,
                                      through the capacity of their mind, are the principle carriers of
                                      meaning. Meaning serves a very human function.

                                      Jessie: I would agree that the mind can be a pattern finding,
                                      organizing device, but that said, not always accurate or benificent.
                                      > Hitler thought he had discerned "meaning" in his theories of the
                                      value of humans, but he was, IMHO, quite wrong.

                                      A.L.B.B. Yes, that is for sure.



                                      Hello ALBB

                                      There are times when I have found meaning within myself, and many times when I have not.
                                      Although Sartre speaks of responsibility, and Camus of creating our own reality, I find the world an extremely limited place for humans.
                                      My personal theory for the existence of the human race, is that we have a well developed memory that confers survival value.  This makes the human race accidental survivors.

                                      Jessie


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