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

Re: [existlist] Re: Where the livin is easy

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Mary, I understand your ideal, and see the possibilities. However, psychogically and sociologically the hunting instincts are associated with putting certain
    Message 1 of 38 , Jan 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary,

      I understand your ideal, and see the possibilities. However, psychogically and sociologically the hunting instincts are associated with putting certain creatures and people into the category of them, as something that survival demands we see as them rather than us. I read a Tolstoy quote to the affect that as long as we have slaughterhouses, we will have frontlines.You can watch cops joking and chatting with each other as they are engaged in "speed traps". Between them there is an us, and we are the thems.I have heard that you can have a rat pack, playing and having a good time;but throw a rat in from another pack, and in a very short time that rat is history. I'd guess visionaries down thru time from Jesus to Marx imagined the expansion of the us to include all of humanity.

      Tom

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: mary.josie59
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 9:42 AM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Where the livin is easy


      Tom,

      In my idealized, fantasy world, a very great expanse of land could be utilized in multiple
      ways: hunter-gathering, farming, eco-friendly manufacturing. Cain and Abel will probably
      never see eye-to-eye, especially since the Abels have been made nearly extinct. Some
      days I think the only thing that should be farmed is a verse. (WH Auden) Most people think
      words are sterile. They might be right. At worst they are a virus. (W. Burroughs) At best
      they keep our brains busy :)

      Happy New Year,
      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:

      Mary,

      The territorial impulse is connected with survival impulses.Land is territory
      that can be used for growing food. I'd guess the first wars were fought over
      hunting and fishing rights.This was probably the motive behind most battles
      native Americans had between one another as well as aboriginal people
      anywhere.Of course, gang wars in the hood are usually over turf, land that can
      be used by one gang or another for drug selling and prostitution etc. I suppose
      this is how aristocracy originated. Someone would provide so many fighting men
      for a battle, and if the battle was successful, some portions of newly acquired
      lands would be given to the leaders in proportion to the contributions they had
      made to winning the battle.It certainly seems to me that the principles
      underlying aristicracy are identical to those underlying gangsters. Maybe
      that's the principle of Orwellian spin, once a gang becomes very successful it
      will call itself a dukedom, or a police force.

      Happy New Year.
      Tom





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • louise
      ... to ... Correction required here. All the indications so far are that I am not at all to blame. Louise ... that ... say, ... the ... what ... I ...
      Message 38 of 38 , Jan 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
        >
        > Jim,
        >
        > Thanks for the encouragement. A return to the thoughts of Nietzsche
        > may be just what the doctor ordered for me. I am in no condition at
        > present to consider the complexities of race, politics or war, and
        to
        > feel this kind of subject-matter as personal grievance is the
        > antithesis of existential. Seems I am to blame.
        >
        > Louise

        Correction required here. All the indications so far are that I am
        not at all to blame.

        Louise


        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart51" <jjimstuart1@>
        wrote:
        > >
        > > Louise,
        > >
        > > My remark was not altogether serious, as I do share your concern
        that
        > > sometimes this forum becomes "seemingly indistinguishable from,
        say,
        > > an intelligent political journal."
        > >
        > > I realize our political views are very different and that, for
        the
        > > most part, I disagree with what you write and you disagree with
        what
        > > I write when we each express our political views.
        > >
        > > However, when we return to philosophical and existential matters,
        I
        > > think my outlook is closer to yours than to any of our American
        > > friends.
        > >
        > > I accept that communication about serious matters is often
        difficult,
        > > and misunderstandings easily arise, but I genuinely appreciate
        your
        > > distinctive contribution to this list. I quite agree with what
        Mary
        > > wrote in her post 46143.
        > >
        > > Jim
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart51" <jjimstuart1@>
        > > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > All,
        > > > >
        > > > > At the risk of annoying Louise again, I'm submitting
        > > > > another `unexistential', general, political post.
        > > >
        > > > Jim,
        > > >
        > > > Am I the only one to find an element of farce about the latest
        > > series
        > > > of misunderstandings, disagreements and non-sequiturs which
        weave
        > > > through the serious arguments and friendly banter? It is not
        only
        > > > farce, because there is an element of the unknown, behind our
        > > speaking,
        > > > or writing. This is how words may 'cause pain'.
        > > >
        > > > It really is not the point if you should write something which
        > > annoys
        > > > me. I was simply getting upset that my own concerns were so
        > > difficult
        > > > to explain satisfactorily, or perhaps this is mainly a matter
        > > between
        > > > myself and Wil, with some involvement from Bill, who like me
        puts
        > > no
        > > > trust in the informal 'politics' of the Left.
        > > >
        > > > In fact, I find it most alarming, in the very process of trying
        to
        > > > present what I believe to be reasonable freedom of speech, if
        > > anyone
        > > > should feel restricted on my account, about writing at the list
        > > what
        > > > they hold to be true. Where there is any breach of list rules
        or
        > > > etiquette, Susan or CSW will step in as they see fit.
        > > >
        > > > I do get frustrated, it is true, when philosophical enquiry
        seems
        > > lost
        > > > in a welter of applied thought, such that an existential list
        > > becomes
        > > > for a while seemingly indistinguishable from, say, an
        intelligent
        > > > political journal. It remains the case, though, that I am a
        member
        > > of
        > > > this list, simply, and do not wish to be made an exception and
        > > excluded
        > > > from its disciplines. Kindness is appreciated, of course, when
        it
        > > does
        > > > not come accompanied with such misunderstanding that it causes
        > > further
        > > > pain. So if I have appeared ungracious in recent times, and
        > > appeared
        > > > to spurn such kindness, this is the reason.
        > > >
        > > > Louise
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.