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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Oct 5, 2008
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 7 , Oct 7, 2008
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 7 , Oct 7, 2008
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 7 , Oct 13, 2008
          View Source
          • 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.