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

Re: [existlist] Re: Archetypical fairy stories. from decovney post

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Hb3g, Heretical? You? Your as heretical as Nascar and Savonarola. Wil ************** New MapQuest Local shows what s happening at your destination. Dining,
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hb3g,

      Heretical? You? Your as heretical as Nascar and Savonarola.

      Wil


      **************
      New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your
      destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!

      (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • tom
      I found this quite interesting. Why it is that, without finitude, there could be no knowledge, no freedom, no imagination, and no Being, in time, for us. This
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I found this quite interesting.

        Why it is that, without finitude, there could be no knowledge, no
        freedom, no imagination, and no Being, in time, for us.

        This may dovetail with Carl Jung's interpretation of "Answer to Job". Job's finitude confronts Yahweh's infinitude. And despite Yahwey's infinite power, Joeb has some qualities that Yahweh lacks, and the knowledge, freedom, and imagination u refer to might very well be those qualities that the finite Joeb posses and the infinite Yahoo does not. The meeting between Krisna and Argjuna in the Bgata Vita is also this encounter between the infinite and finite.

        Myth is not an account of a particular historical happening; but rather a model of archtypical happenings. The fundamentalist may see the account of the Garden of Eden as literal, whereas the more sophisticated person will see it as a mythological depiction of the emergence of man from nature into concious individuality.
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Herman B. Triplegood
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 5:22 PM
        Subject: [existlist] Re: Archetypical fairy stories. from decovney post


        Well, I have given a lot of my time to the study of mythology, symbols,
        religions of the world, and a bunch of other things along those lines
        too.

        How about this question? What does existentialism have to do with ...
        mythology? Or is that just a bit too old-fashioned for an ultra-modern
        and "oh so sophisticated" list all about what be the "happening thing"
        right now?

        I say, mythology,. instead of Thor, or Odin, to emphasize just this
        little point. I am not as naive as some might think when it comes to
        those kinds of things. Even those people who say they "believe" in such
        things, deep down inside, know better than that. They know they have
        invented it. They made it all up. Or somebody did.

        I'll take a little bitty stab at it right here.

        What the two (existentialism & mythology) have in common is ... well,
        man! That's what! They are both made up. By man. They are both likely
        or unlikely stories. Told by man. They are both, whether they know it
        or not, whether they affirm or deny it ... well, metaphysical accounts
        of human existence in some form or another.

        Man. The metaphysical animal. Man. The myth maker. Man. The
        existentialist. Man buries the dead, and he tells stories about them.
        Man asks, "Why?" Man asks, "Why me?"

        It all goes together. Life is not encountered, pre-packaged, with
        everything separated into nice little distinct compartments, from the
        get go. We do that. After the fact.

        It is an interesting twist, I think, that in good old Immanuel's
        supposedly dry and dusty old Critique of Pure Reason, it is the answer
        to the big question about metaphysics that he is really after there,
        and the answer he comes up with, framed at the very heart of the book,
        turns out to be all about these things:

        Imagination.
        Time.

        What these two things have to do with knowledge and freedom.

        And why knowledge, and freedom, are, when it comes right down to it,
        the product of our finitude.

        Why it is that, without finitude, there could be no knowledge, no
        freedom, no imagination, and no Being, in time, for us.

        How is that for an heretical interpretation?

        Hb3g

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Ah, decovney, you must converse with Hb32O. See if you can find a
        way
        > to legetimise fairy tails. Herman knows the ancient tails of Thor and
        > perhaps Odin. I would like to know how they relate to
        existentialism.
        > Pray tell. Bill
        >





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Herman B. Triplegood
        Yes! That s the spirit right there! I get that from The Gita too. What stands out there is Arjuna s angst facing the imminent battle. That queasy feeling of
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 7, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes! That's the spirit right there! I get that from The Gita too.
          What stands out there is Arjuna's angst facing the imminent battle.
          That queasy feeling of uneasy mortality. Remember Krshna. Yes. But do
          not forget Arjuna. Arjuna is the HUMAN in the story. The HUMAN.
          That's what the Gita is REALLY all about.

          Consider this. We ask questions. Right? Why? Why do we ask questions?
          Okay. One could say the answer to that is to get the answers. Of
          course it is! Silly!

          But that is not really what I have in mind. What I have in mind is
          the one thing that makes asking a question, any question, even
          possible in the first place. That has to be, always, not yet, having
          the answer. That has to be, always already, being finite.

          That has to be what Socrates is putting his finger on in the Apology
          when he says that human wisdom, sophon anthropon, is relatively
          worthless when compared to divine wisdom. It has to be what
          Socrates "ironically" means when he concludes that he must be wise
          because he recognizes that he knows, fundamentally, nothing. Nothing
          at all!

          But how can that be? What is up with that? To know that we don't
          know, means, that we already understand something about what we don't
          know. Or ... what we have FORGOTTEN. Or jneed to remember.

          This isn't the caricaturized skepticism that we think it is. Hell! We
          don't even comprehend skepticism! How could we? We just don't get
          Socrates when we think we have handily dismissed what he said by
          pointing out, pedantically, I might add, that what he just said is
          logically inconsistent. Give me a break!

          What Socrates is really saying is basically what I have brought up,
          from time to time, with Socrates in mind.

          What do we know? Okay. Alot. So what? How interesting is that anyway?
          Well...that's just fine. I mean knowing. Anything. A bunch of things.
          I am "suitably" impressed.

          But ...

          What about what we don't know?

          Eh? What ABOUT that?

          Is Socrates still relevant or not?

          H thinks this is the real insight that drove Kant. Not what we know.
          Not what we don't know. But what we don't know. The fact that
          we "don't know" at all. That is the question. That is the REAL
          question. The question of our finitude. That finitude, interestingly
          enough, turns out to be something transcendental.

          H brings this up in a big way in the Kant book, "Kant and the Problem
          of Metaphysics," that is. It is worth reading.

          The essence of (our) finitude is central to the question of Being.

          Then, H picks it up and runs with it in the lectures on
          the "Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics: World, Finitude, Solitude."
          All of this right after B & T came out. A period during which H
          was "brainstorming" the whole complicated issue of knowledge and
          freedom, transcendence and finitude, Being and time, and time and
          imagination. And truth.

          Finitude. Limitation. Putting a definite limit to something at first
          indefinite. Delimiting. Setting a horizon for the meaning of that
          something. In other words, determining that thing in concept.
          Determination. Definition. Even the infinite is defined by Aristotle
          as that which always has an outside. In other words, as that which
          always has a definable limit. Is that paradoxical or what? But it
          makes sense in a way. The infinite really means always having a
          beyond. Never nopt having a beyond. But beyond what? The limit. Of
          course. Infinite does not mean without limit it means that the limit,
          any limit, is always negotiable. Finitude is the renegotiation of
          limit. That, right there, is the transcendence in finitude. That,
          right there, is that ekstatic quality of finitude that H is alluding
          to in B & T.

          Hb3g

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
          wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > I found this quite interesting.
          >
          > Why it is that, without finitude, there could be no knowledge, no
          > freedom, no imagination, and no Being, in time, for us.
          >
          > This may dovetail with Carl Jung's interpretation of "Answer to
          Job". Job's finitude confronts Yahweh's infinitude. And despite
          Yahwey's infinite power, Joeb has some qualities that Yahweh lacks,
          and the knowledge, freedom, and imagination u refer to might very
          well be those qualities that the finite Joeb posses and the infinite
          Yahoo does not. The meeting between Krisna and Argjuna in the Bgata
          Vita is also this encounter between the infinite and finite.
          >
          > Myth is not an account of a particular historical happening; but
          rather a model of archtypical happenings. The fundamentalist may see
          the account of the Garden of Eden as literal, whereas the more
          sophisticated person will see it as a mythological depiction of the
          emergence of man from nature into concious individuality.
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Herman B. Triplegood
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 5:22 PM
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: Archetypical fairy stories. from
          decovney post
          >
          >
          > Well, I have given a lot of my time to the study of mythology,
          symbols,
          > religions of the world, and a bunch of other things along those
          lines
          > too.
          >
          > How about this question? What does existentialism have to do
          with ...
          > mythology? Or is that just a bit too old-fashioned for an ultra-
          modern
          > and "oh so sophisticated" list all about what be the "happening
          thing"
          > right now?
          >
          > I say, mythology,. instead of Thor, or Odin, to emphasize just
          this
          > little point. I am not as naive as some might think when it comes
          to
          > those kinds of things. Even those people who say they "believe"
          in such
          > things, deep down inside, know better than that. They know they
          have
          > invented it. They made it all up. Or somebody did.
          >
          > I'll take a little bitty stab at it right here.
          >
          > What the two (existentialism & mythology) have in common is ...
          well,
          > man! That's what! They are both made up. By man. They are both
          likely
          > or unlikely stories. Told by man. They are both, whether they
          know it
          > or not, whether they affirm or deny it ... well, metaphysical
          accounts
          > of human existence in some form or another.
          >
          > Man. The metaphysical animal. Man. The myth maker. Man. The
          > existentialist. Man buries the dead, and he tells stories about
          them.
          > Man asks, "Why?" Man asks, "Why me?"
          >
          > It all goes together. Life is not encountered, pre-packaged, with
          > everything separated into nice little distinct compartments, from
          the
          > get go. We do that. After the fact.
          >
          > It is an interesting twist, I think, that in good old Immanuel's
          > supposedly dry and dusty old Critique of Pure Reason, it is the
          answer
          > to the big question about metaphysics that he is really after
          there,
          > and the answer he comes up with, framed at the very heart of the
          book,
          > turns out to be all about these things:
          >
          > Imagination.
          > Time.
          >
          > What these two things have to do with knowledge and freedom.
          >
          > And why knowledge, and freedom, are, when it comes right down to
          it,
          > the product of our finitude.
          >
          > Why it is that, without finitude, there could be no knowledge, no
          > freedom, no imagination, and no Being, in time, for us.
          >
          > How is that for an heretical interpretation?
          >
          > Hb3g
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > Ah, decovney, you must converse with Hb32O. See if you can find
          a
          > way
          > > to legetimise fairy tails. Herman knows the ancient tails of
          Thor and
          > > perhaps Odin. I would like to know how they relate to
          > existentialism.
          > > Pray tell. Bill
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • nitaisundara
          Herman, Firstly I am curious what translations and commentaries of the Gita you have acquainted yourself with? I don t mean that like you have gotten an
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 7, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Herman,

            Firstly I am curious what translations and commentaries of the
            Gita you have acquainted yourself with? I don't mean that like you
            have gotten an improper understanding, but am merely curious because
            the Gita is in my realm of interest and I was delighted to see it pop
            up here.

            I agree largely that the Gita is about the human, but moreso it
            proposes a practical methodology for systematically forming a
            relationship with that which can never be "known"
            comprehensively--Krishna. An eternality that does not negate
            finiteness, a very "human" way of knowing which eradicates the angst
            of not knowing yet leaves the pleasurable mystery and anticipation.
            This is the divine wisdom, (sambhanda in sanskrit)-knowledge of who
            you are, what the world is, and the infinite, and how those three
            interrelate.
            nitai

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...> wrote:
            >
            > Yes! That's the spirit right there! I get that from The Gita too.
            > What stands out there is Arjuna's angst facing the imminent battle.
            > That queasy feeling of uneasy mortality. Remember Krshna. Yes. But do
            > not forget Arjuna. Arjuna is the HUMAN in the story. The HUMAN.
            > That's what the Gita is REALLY all about.
            >
            > Consider this. We ask questions. Right? Why? Why do we ask questions?
            > Okay. One could say the answer to that is to get the answers. Of
            > course it is! Silly!
            >
            > But that is not really what I have in mind. What I have in mind is
            > the one thing that makes asking a question, any question, even
            > possible in the first place. That has to be, always, not yet, having
            > the answer. That has to be, always already, being finite.
            >
            > That has to be what Socrates is putting his finger on in the Apology
            > when he says that human wisdom, sophon anthropon, is relatively
            > worthless when compared to divine wisdom. It has to be what
            > Socrates "ironically" means when he concludes that he must be wise
            > because he recognizes that he knows, fundamentally, nothing. Nothing
            > at all!
          • Herman B. Triplegood
            Nitai: No scholarship. Just a familiarity. To be human is to stand within the infinite at the position of finitude. The problem is that the immensity, the
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 13, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Nitai:

              No scholarship. Just a familiarity. To be human is to stand within
              the infinite at the position of finitude. The problem is that the
              immensity, the radicality, the primordiality, of the finite is
              actually under appreciated by most philosophers. Just because two
              things, finite and infinite, are opposites, does not mean they never
              meet. They, in fact, do meet, and they meet at the very place where
              we live our lives.

              Hb3g

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "nitaisundara" <nitaisundara@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Herman,
              >
              > Firstly I am curious what translations and commentaries of the
              > Gita you have acquainted yourself with? I don't mean that like you
              > have gotten an improper understanding, but am merely curious because
              > the Gita is in my realm of interest and I was delighted to see it
              pop
              > up here.
              >
              > I agree largely that the Gita is about the human, but moreso it
              > proposes a practical methodology for systematically forming a
              > relationship with that which can never be "known"
              > comprehensively--Krishna. An eternality that does not negate
              > finiteness, a very "human" way of knowing which eradicates the angst
              > of not knowing yet leaves the pleasurable mystery and anticipation.
              > This is the divine wisdom, (sambhanda in sanskrit)-knowledge of who
              > you are, what the world is, and the infinite, and how those three
              > interrelate.
              > nitai
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@>
              wrote:
              > >
              > > Yes! That's the spirit right there! I get that from The Gita too.
              > > What stands out there is Arjuna's angst facing the imminent
              battle.
              > > That queasy feeling of uneasy mortality. Remember Krshna. Yes.
              But do
              > > not forget Arjuna. Arjuna is the HUMAN in the story. The HUMAN.
              > > That's what the Gita is REALLY all about.
              > >
              > > Consider this. We ask questions. Right? Why? Why do we ask
              questions?
              > > Okay. One could say the answer to that is to get the answers. Of
              > > course it is! Silly!
              > >
              > > But that is not really what I have in mind. What I have in mind
              is
              > > the one thing that makes asking a question, any question, even
              > > possible in the first place. That has to be, always, not yet,
              having
              > > the answer. That has to be, always already, being finite.
              > >
              > > That has to be what Socrates is putting his finger on in the
              Apology
              > > when he says that human wisdom, sophon anthropon, is relatively
              > > worthless when compared to divine wisdom. It has to be what
              > > Socrates "ironically" means when he concludes that he must be
              wise
              > > because he recognizes that he knows, fundamentally, nothing.
              Nothing
              > > at all!
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.