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

Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-ing

Expand Messages
  • a_living_breathing_being
    hb3g, very beautifully stated Herman. Your points conjure Abraham Maslows phrase peak experience . I too have had such immediate/momentary experiences. The
    Message 1 of 34 , Aug 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      hb3g, very beautifully stated Herman. Your points conjure Abraham
      Maslows phrase "peak experience". I too have had such
      immediate/momentary experiences. The incomprehensible / ineffable
      encounter with ones ownmost being; and especially in the dark
      primordial night hours.

      I share with you some of William Wordsworth;

      "the world is too much with us; late and soon, getting and spending,
      we lay waste our powers; little we see in nature that is ours, we
      have given our hearts away, a sordid boom. This sea, that bears her
      bosom to the moon, the winds that will be howling at all hours and
      are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers; for this, for everything,
      we are out of tune."

      ALBB



      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Wil:
      >
      > I just want to say that if you are anywhere near where that
      hurricane
      > is expected to land, just get out of there. We don't want to lose
      > you. This one could be every bit as bad as Katrina, if not actually
      > worse. Your things, your home are all eplaceable, but YOU are not.
      > Right now, what really matters, Wil, is that you are safe. Go!
      Don't
      > sit tight!
      >
      >
      > The center of gravity from which my yes comes is an immediate and
      > shocking experience that comes to me now and then. Of course, you
      > will see Heidegger shot right through it all, but that is not
      because
      > I got that experience from Heidegger, it is simply because
      Heidegger
      > is the only philosopher that I know who has put his finger on that
      > shock and has talked about it explicitly.
      >
      > Sometimes, during those long nights at work, when I am caught up in
      > the technologies that I work with in order to earn a living, I take
      a
      > break and I go outside and smoke a KOOL cigarette. It is 3:30 in
      the
      > morning. The Moon is three quarters full, and lingering over the
      > western mountains. It is tinted orange by the smoke of raging
      > wildfires in California. I am tired. I am tired of typing, of
      writing
      > lines of code, of tinkering with instruments, of talking on the
      > phone, of sitting under the blue-white tinge of flickering
      > fluorescent lights.
      >
      > All that I want, for that ten minutes, is the Moon, the night sky,
      > the stars, the gentle breeze that stirs the trees around me, and
      the
      > pleasure of that cigarette. All that I want, for just ten minutes,
      is
      > to just be there in that moment.
      >
      > I make an effort, a difficult effort, not to think about anything
      for
      > a moment, but to just be there, to take it in, to witness all of
      > that, and to witness my just standing there, without prejudice,
      > without presupposition, without any urge to explanation.
      >
      > Then, I am overcome with this almost overwhelming and shocking
      > perplexity that here I stand and I witness all of this, pretty much
      > in silence, and I even witness my very standing there, my just
      Being
      > there, and, only for a moment, it is as if a veil has been
      > momentarily ripped off of the very face of existence, as if I am
      > naked before the terrifying and unsettling attraction of the what
      it
      > is in just its pure that it is.
      >
      > And then, almost immediately, the little voice in my head kicks in,
      > the explaining, the thinking, the inner saying of every little
      > triviality sets in, and that momentary vision, that gut level
      sense,
      > that mood pregnant with an inexpressible understanding, of the very
      > perplexity of my just Being there, is gone.
      >
      > That, right there, is what Heidegger tries to put his finger on in
      > Being and Time. It truly is a moment of vision, a kind of ekstasis,
      > pregnant with a meaning that outstrips me, a meaning that I cannot
      > adequately put into words. Call it a Satori, or a Samadhi, or a
      > nausea, or an anxiety. Neither the exact words, nor the fact that
      > they are ambiguous or equivocal, really matters, because what
      > provokes those words, all of which are fumbling and failed attempts
      > at putting an ekstasis into a logos, an account, all of which are
      > doomed to be inadequate in the face of that at which they all
      merely
      > grope, that whatever it is that provokes, is the most concrete,
      > intimate, personal, immediate, and significant kind of disclosure
      > that anybody, you or I, can ever have.
      >
      > As soon as I try to describe it to you, to explain it to you, the
      > purity of that moment of vision gets covered up and distorted into
      a
      > mere triviality. You know that, and I know that. We can't really
      get
      > a grip on the perplexity of just Being. It is not a scientific kind
      > of problem for which a solution can ever be at hand. It is a
      > primordial kind of experience that all of us can have, but seldom
      > allow ourselves to have, because it is so deeply unsettling, and it
      > puts all of our worldly little projects, our everyday concerns,
      into
      > question in a radical way that undercuts our presumption of being
      at
      > ease, and in a state of comfort, of complaceny, about our very
      > existence.
      >
      > The important point is, I think, that when we say "Being-as-such"
      the
      > only thing that we can really mean by that, our only access to
      > that "Being-as-such" must be through the perplexity of our very
      > own "Being-as-such" and if we are constantly turning away from
      that,
      > and burying ourselves in the trivialities of everyday existence,
      > paying the bills, going to work, having idle conversations about
      > American Idol or Law and Order, the very possibility of Being
      > perplexed in just that way, remains incomprehensible and foolish to
      > us. We constantly talk ourselves out of having that primordial
      > experience, that shock of just Being there, and we constantly talk
      > ourselves into our forgetful involvement in the myriad of concerns
      > that keeps this disturbing experience at bay, sometimes, right to
      the
      > very end of our lives.
      >
      > One of the things that I think we miss, so utterly, is that this
      > shock of just Being there, is itself Being-as-such. The very idea
      of
      > any kind of distinction, of a dichotomy, between my Being and Being-
      > as-such is erased at this level of promordiality. It is a hard
      thing
      > to put into words. Why is thst the case? Is this a flaw in
      language?
      > I don't think so. I don't think it is a flaw in the ordinary sense
      of
      > the term.
      >
      > Hb3g
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Really? Hmmm. You mean Being-as-such? Without rephrasing Heid.,
      can
      > you
      > > explain?
      > >
      > > Wil
      > >
      > > In a message dated 8/30/08 7:37:50 PM, hb3g@ writes:
      > >
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Wil: Does Being really have a meaning at all "qua Being"?
      > > >
      > > > Yes.
      > > >
      > > > Hb3g
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > **************
      > > It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
      > > deal here.
      > >
      > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?
      ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
    • louise
      ... ing ... ing, & ... the ... Collider ... not ... than ... as such ... Spirituality ... out ... sense ... each ... interpretive skills ... science ... given
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of louise
        > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 September 2008 5:10 AM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-
        ing
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "chris lofting" <lofting@>
        wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > > From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Aija Veldre
        > > Beldavs
        > > > > Sent: Monday, 8 September 2008 8:35 PM
        > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-
        ing, &
        > > > > Tim-ing
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > > The ontological dynamic is recursive and as such reflects
        > > > > the dynamics
        > > > > > of the chaos game. That reflection demands consideration of
        the
        > > > > > methodology and its properties and methods that can be
        > > > > confused with what is under analysis.
        > > > > > Chris.
        > > > >
        > > > > uh, as one of the science guys on the list, Chris, would
        > > you care to
        > > > > comment on the end of the world possibility this Wed.
        > > > > Sept. 10th when the mad scientists of the Large Hedron
        Collider
        > > > > attempt to create their mini black hole?:)
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > ;-) it is a problem isn't it! forgive them ... for they know
        not
        > > what they
        > > > do...?
        > >
        > > Chris,
        > >
        > > It was already obvious from your earlier remarks that you do
        > > not understand the essence of the Christian religion, nor in
        > > this instance do you see the shallowness of the disrespect
        > > revealed by your throwaway comment. Jesus understood what he
        > > meant by saying, they know not what they do, and if he was
        > > merely mortal the point is lost. As far as human frailty
        > > goes, quite often wrongdoers are perfectly aware of what they
        > > are doing, but fail to understand its significance. Of
        > > course. They are not usually philosophers, in the Greek
        > > sense of the term, interested with subjective passion in
        > > their thought. This rather solemn statement is needful,
        > > because it concerns disagreements at the list concerning
        > > Kierkegaard's view of the Christian faith, and is hardly a
        > > trifling matter.
        > >
        >
        > ;-) you should have realised by now that I lean more to Nietzsche
        than
        > Kierkegaard. I find any religious perspective as de-humanising and
        as such
        > agree with Marx re 'opiate of the masses' .. or was it 'people'? ;-)
        >
        > There is a sharp distinction between spirituality vs religion.
        Spirituality
        > comes as a property of being a social species and so elements of the
        > parallel when compared to the serial - the organic position brings
        out
        > properties of symmetry and so a sense of 'all is connected'. This
        sense
        > serves to integrate be it between members of the species or within
        each
        > member as singular beings. Not understanding these basics allows for
        > mis-interpretations of what is going on to a degree our
        interpretive skills
        > get out of control when not grounded in reality through use of
        science
        > research - an example of this form of 'mis-guided' interpretation
        given by
        > a Rabbi describing 'angels' when the dynamics covered is more the
        neurology
        > responding to the push of context on instincts/habits and
        consciousness
        > having no idea what is going on -- see
        > http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html
        >
        > Chris
        >

        Chris,

        It is you who have no idea what is going on. You are a newbie.
        Please try to show a little humility.

        Louise
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.