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

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

Expand Messages
  • louise
    ... your self-assurance is simply that. read Herman s post, for an account of why* you lack understanding of the territory. ... the statement was made, to
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 7, 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: Sunday, 7 September 2008 6:33 AM
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Concurrence of Be-ing, Think-ing, & Tim-ing
      > >
      > > > The existentialist perspective covers mindsets that are out of date
      > > > from a scientific perspective. This becomes a problem over time in
      > > > that refusal to adapt to new data forces any 'central'
      > > perspective to
      > > > become marginalised.
      > >
      > > chris,
      > >
      > > i simply cannot bear to read any more of this self-indulgent
      > > drivel without a further intervention. you arrive here at an
      > > existential list and shortly announce to us all that "from a
      > > scientific perspective" the long-evolved applications of
      > > philosophical thought to everyday life represent "mindsets
      > > that are out of date". you are trampling all over territory
      > > for which you have neither understanding nor respect.
      > >
      >
      > wrong. ;-)

      your self-assurance is simply that. read Herman's post, for an
      account of why* you lack understanding of the territory.

      >
      > > my own capacity to make plain to unprejudiced readers why i
      > > respond so trenchantly, and after apparently agreeing to
      > > disagree with you in this matter, is seriously impaired at
      > > present by the condition of disordered thought from which i
      > > am suffering.
      >
      > ... so I have to take what you write with a grain of salt? OK. ;-)

      the statement was made, to indicate that i acknowledge unevenness in
      my recent contributions, and hope to make a gradual return to duly
      ordered thought, where that is called for. although the remark was
      addressed to you, it seemed a kind of courtesy to readers of the list
      in general.

      >
      > > like sartre and camus, i have felt with an
      > > intense passion the intellectual conflicts which centre
      > > around political and economic realities.
      >
      > ... so you only consider the three of you as having these feelings?
      I doubt
      > that.

      of course not. they are examples of thinkers who grapple with
      realities which are concrete.

      >
      > > my own life has
      > > been so directly threatened in this process that i was
      > > obliged to adopt strategies of literary disguise, in hopes of
      > > communicating with those who would understand.
      >
      > you will need to flesh this out to make any sense.

      i think that for some readers it will make a small amount of sense as
      it stands. for the present, that seems quite enough.

      >
      > > the power of
      > > the fist, the calculated deception, and the gun, frequently
      > > win out in this world against natural fear and naivety.
      >
      > Our species is naturally competitive (genocide is not something
      limited to
      > *our* species - we are just, unfortunately, more efficient where such is
      > rooted in positive feedback dynamics - discretisation and
      amplification).
      > With the lack of training frontal lobes etc all we end up with are
      'smart
      > apes' - the price of undisciplined 'freedom'. A property of those
      who live
      > in fear is that of asserting their identity (and so conforming to a
      need to
      > do so) THROUGH the context - as such they hide, disappear, into that
      > context. This dynamic can cover the exploitation of the context to
      hide as
      > well as the natural tendency for social life forms to seek protection
      > through numbers. Emotionally this is of interest in that the dominating
      > reactive emotions of grief and fear can be refined into proactive
      emotions
      > of discernment and devotion-to-another/others.
      >
      > A lot of religion exploits this area with the focus on suffering
      leading to
      > 'transcendence'; this especially covers grief ( a loss of love) and
      turning
      > that suffering into quality control (discernment) - e.g. Buddhism
      > (self-suffering) and Christianity (someone suffers on your behalf).

      you appear to mean all this seriously. the indifference of such
      abstractedness reads like a form of violence, for what it excludes. L.
    • 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.