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

Delinate please

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    Many people are really put off by the concept of a maleable right and wrong. Who is the authority in your life? If it is not you, you are not an
    Message 1 of 8 , May 14, 2009
      Many people are really put off by the concept of a maleable right and wrong. Who is the authority in your life? If it is not you, you are not an existentialist.
      Now we see a different sort of moralist ideologue. With the protestant right wing on the defence, the catholic right wing is filling the stupidity void. These catholics are a new strain of pathogenic organism as they arise from the lower class, immigrant church into the upper middle class.
      For many years a gradual liberalism had left many catholics just ignoring conservative Rome. The new, more wealthy catholics find right wing politics more appealing to their pocketbooks and authoritarian ideals. The problem is that before they could change their political yard signs the recession knocked them back into the middle class. Now we are left with a group of stiff necked moralists who have no money to push their narrow agendae. They are the students at Notre Dame whose parents cannot afford to have them there. They are hard core , right wing ideologues who can no longer afford their station. This situation is unstable and the Presidential ,commencement visit is pointing to the collision of money and mores.
      Obama is far too clever a politician to insult them. He wants their votes. Should they anger him he is in a position to manipulate them into change or political annhilation. Bloody babies and inflamatory signs will be used by all sort of social conservatives but I am sure the administration will be able to sort out the factions. There will be a great deal of pictures taken and having yourself known as a radical opponent of modernism could easily come with negative repurcussions. I hope so, I hope they make total fools of themselves as they have chosen the low road . The cultural wars rage on but this new roster of players has new factions that are only beginning to expose themselves. Bill
    • Herman B. Triplegood
      I keep thinking about the connection between the word authority and the word author, and, it seems to me, that is what true authority really is, it is being an
      Message 2 of 8 , May 14, 2009
        I keep thinking about the connection between the word authority and the word author, and, it seems to me, that is what true authority really is, it is being an author, and, by that, of course, I do mean being the author of the book of one's own life, taking charge of one's own destiny, even in the face of so-called fate, or absurdity, or whatever it is you settle upon and call that which is absolutely anti-thetical to the spirit of human freedom.

        Funny thing though.

        The whole idea of being the author of one's own destiny goes as far back as philosophy itself. The existentialists didn't invent that idea. They just resurrected it with a sweetly antagonistic twist in the face of a plethora of various kinds of fundamentalism, and not just the religious ones either, like the fundamentalism of scientism, or the fundamentalism of certain political ideologies, indeed, the whole concept of ideology, etcetera.

        The only kind of authority that deserves recognition, as such, would be self-authority, precisely, because self-authority is the only authentic authority there is.

        But that isn't just existentialism. That is philosophy itself.

        Read the Greeks.

        Seriously. The way I see it, with the advent of existentialism, philosophy has come home, once again, to its true vocation, the one and only thing it has ever been about, and that is the challenge, to us, to rise above the muck and the mire, and to raise ourselves up to...

        the level of...

        Freedom.

        So...

        Does that make, of existentialism, a moral philsophy?

        You bet it does!

        Freedom is not some abstract metaphysical postulate that must be assumed in order to make sense out of human moral sentiments. Freedom is the concrete attainment of the highest possible good for man. Freedom is not just an empty possibility; rather, freedom is the most possible of all human actualities.

        I believe in that. I trust it. It guides my thoughts and my actions. And, I see this trust in freedom as exactly the same thing as placing my trust... in reason.

        Hb3g

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
        >
        > Many people are really put off by the concept of a maleable right and wrong. Who is the authority in your life? If it is not you, you are not an existentialist.
        > Now we see a different sort of moralist ideologue. With the protestant right wing on the defence, the catholic right wing is filling the stupidity void. These catholics are a new strain of pathogenic organism as they arise from the lower class, immigrant church into the upper middle class.
        > For many years a gradual liberalism had left many catholics just ignoring conservative Rome. The new, more wealthy catholics find right wing politics more appealing to their pocketbooks and authoritarian ideals. The problem is that before they could change their political yard signs the recession knocked them back into the middle class. Now we are left with a group of stiff necked moralists who have no money to push their narrow agendae. They are the students at Notre Dame whose parents cannot afford to have them there. They are hard core , right wing ideologues who can no longer afford their station. This situation is unstable and the Presidential ,commencement visit is pointing to the collision of money and mores.
        > Obama is far too clever a politician to insult them. He wants their votes. Should they anger him he is in a position to manipulate them into change or political annhilation. Bloody babies and inflamatory signs will be used by all sort of social conservatives but I am sure the administration will be able to sort out the factions. There will be a great deal of pictures taken and having yourself known as a radical opponent of modernism could easily come with negative repurcussions. I hope so, I hope they make total fools of themselves as they have chosen the low road . The cultural wars rage on but this new roster of players has new factions that are only beginning to expose themselves. Bill
        >
      • bhvwd
        Message 3 of 8 , May 14, 2009
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...> wrote:
          >
          > I keep thinking about the connection between the word authority and the word author, and, it seems to me, that is what true authority really is, it is being an author, and, by that, of course, I do mean being the author of the book of one's own life, taking charge of one's own destiny, even in the face of so-called fate, or absurdity, or whatever it is you settle upon and call that which is absolutely anti-thetical to the spirit of human freedom.
          >
          > Funny thing though.
          >
          > The whole idea of being the author of one's own destiny goes as far back as philosophy itself. The existentialists didn't invent that idea. They just resurrected it with a sweetly antagonistic twist in the face of a plethora of various kinds of fundamentalism, and not just the religious ones either, like the fundamentalism of scientism, or the fundamentalism of certain political ideologies, indeed, the whole concept of ideology, etcetera.
          >
          > The only kind of authority that deserves recognition, as such, would be self-authority, precisely, because self-authority is the only authentic authority there is.
          >
          > But that isn't just existentialism. That is philosophy itself.
          >
          > Read the Greeks.
          >
          > Seriously. The way I see it, with the advent of existentialism, philosophy has come home, once again, to its true vocation, the one and only thing it has ever been about, and that is the challenge, to us, to rise above the muck and the mire, and to raise ourselves up to...
          >
          > the level of...
          >
          > Freedom.
          >
          > So...
          >
          > Does that make, of existentialism, a moral philsophy?
          >
          > You bet it does!
          >
          > Freedom is not some abstract metaphysical postulate that must be assumed in order to make sense out of human moral sentiments. Freedom is the concrete attainment of the highest possible good for man. Freedom is not just an empty possibility; rather, freedom is the most possible of all human actualities.
          >
          > I believe in that. I trust it. It guides my thoughts and my actions. And, I see this trust in freedom as exactly the same thing as placing my trust... in reason.
          >
          > Hb3g
          > Herman, Your perspective is to approach the conversation from the tangent of freedom. To quote the poet"Freedom is a word I rarely use". I think talking about freedom is like wearing a target on your back. I think freedom must be taken, it is not bestowed. Having taken freedom I do not wish to advertise my gain. It is personal and private. Bill
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Many people are really put off by the concept of a maleable right and wrong. Who is the authority in your life? If it is not you, you are not an existentialist.
          > > Now we see a different sort of moralist ideologue. With the protestant right wing on the defence, the catholic right wing is filling the stupidity void. These catholics are a new strain of pathogenic organism as they arise from the lower class, immigrant church into the upper middle class.
          > > For many years a gradual liberalism had left many catholics just ignoring conservative Rome. The new, more wealthy catholics find right wing politics more appealing to their pocketbooks and authoritarian ideals. The problem is that before they could change their political yard signs the recession knocked them back into the middle class. Now we are left with a group of stiff necked moralists who have no money to push their narrow agendae. They are the students at Notre Dame whose parents cannot afford to have them there. They are hard core , right wing ideologues who can no longer afford their station. This situation is unstable and the Presidential ,commencement visit is pointing to the collision of money and mores.
          > > Obama is far too clever a politician to insult them. He wants their votes. Should they anger him he is in a position to manipulate them into change or political annhilation. Bloody babies and inflamatory signs will be used by all sort of social conservatives but I am sure the administration will be able to sort out the factions. There will be a great deal of pictures taken and having yourself known as a radical opponent of modernism could easily come with negative repurcussions. I hope so, I hope they make total fools of themselves as they have chosen the low road . The cultural wars rage on but this new roster of players has new factions that are only beginning to expose themselves. Bill
          > >
          >
        • louise
          ... Herman, The way I read the Greeks, leaves me feeling it is quite unthinkable to take charge of one s own destiny . Imagine telling that to Oedipus, for
          Message 4 of 8 , May 14, 2009
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...> wrote:
            >
            > I keep thinking about the connection between the word authority and the word author, and, it seems to me, that is what true authority really is, it is being an author, and, by that, of course, I do mean being the author of the book of one's own life, taking charge of one's own destiny, even in the face of so-called fate, or absurdity, or whatever it is you settle upon and call that which is absolutely anti-thetical to the spirit of human freedom.
            >
            > Funny thing though.
            >
            > The whole idea of being the author of one's own destiny goes as far back as philosophy itself. The existentialists didn't invent that idea. They just resurrected it with a sweetly antagonistic twist in the face of a plethora of various kinds of fundamentalism, and not just the religious ones either, like the fundamentalism of scientism, or the fundamentalism of certain political ideologies, indeed, the whole concept of ideology, etcetera.
            >
            > The only kind of authority that deserves recognition, as such, would be self-authority, precisely, because self-authority is the only authentic authority there is.
            >
            > But that isn't just existentialism. That is philosophy itself.
            >
            > Read the Greeks.

            Herman, The way I read the Greeks, leaves me feeling it is quite unthinkable to 'take charge of one's own destiny'. Imagine telling that to Oedipus, for instance! Destiny is an awesome concept, a reality once encountered that must be lived with in the struggle for self-command. The reality, in my own experience, can be so overwhelming that it provokes amnesia, which might give rise to apparently contradictory statements. Reason is indispensable, but existence demands that it find its rightful place, in what may be a long and agonising quest for freedom. Louise

            >
            > Seriously. The way I see it, with the advent of existentialism, philosophy has come home, once again, to its true vocation, the one and only thing it has ever been about, and that is the challenge, to us, to rise above the muck and the mire, and to raise ourselves up to...
            >
            > the level of...
            >
            > Freedom.
            >
            > So...
            >
            > Does that make, of existentialism, a moral philsophy?
            >
            > You bet it does!
            >
            > Freedom is not some abstract metaphysical postulate that must be assumed in order to make sense out of human moral sentiments. Freedom is the concrete attainment of the highest possible good for man. Freedom is not just an empty possibility; rather, freedom is the most possible of all human actualities.
            >
            > I believe in that. I trust it. It guides my thoughts and my actions. And, I see this trust in freedom as exactly the same thing as placing my trust... in reason.
            >
            > Hb3g
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Many people are really put off by the concept of a maleable right and wrong. Who is the authority in your life? If it is not you, you are not an existentialist.
            > > Now we see a different sort of moralist ideologue. With the protestant right wing on the defence, the catholic right wing is filling the stupidity void. These catholics are a new strain of pathogenic organism as they arise from the lower class, immigrant church into the upper middle class.
            > > For many years a gradual liberalism had left many catholics just ignoring conservative Rome. The new, more wealthy catholics find right wing politics more appealing to their pocketbooks and authoritarian ideals. The problem is that before they could change their political yard signs the recession knocked them back into the middle class. Now we are left with a group of stiff necked moralists who have no money to push their narrow agendae. They are the students at Notre Dame whose parents cannot afford to have them there. They are hard core , right wing ideologues who can no longer afford their station. This situation is unstable and the Presidential ,commencement visit is pointing to the collision of money and mores.
            > > Obama is far too clever a politician to insult them. He wants their votes. Should they anger him he is in a position to manipulate them into change or political annhilation. Bloody babies and inflamatory signs will be used by all sort of social conservatives but I am sure the administration will be able to sort out the factions. There will be a great deal of pictures taken and having yourself known as a radical opponent of modernism could easily come with negative repurcussions. I hope so, I hope they make total fools of themselves as they have chosen the low road . The cultural wars rage on but this new roster of players has new factions that are only beginning to expose themselves. Bill
            > >
            >
          • Herman B. Triplegood
            Louise: But there was a reason why Oedipus met the fate that he did. He was blind to certain basic facts of life; i.e., like who his mother was, or, who his
            Message 5 of 8 , May 14, 2009
              Louise:

              But there was a reason why Oedipus met the fate that he did. He was blind to certain basic facts of life; i.e., like who his mother was, or, who his father was. Had he known these facts, he probably would not have met the fate that he did.

              That, I think, is the whole point of that tragedy. That it is only our lack of insight (into ourselves) that enslaves us. The corollary, the positive lesson, is that insight (into ourselves) can set us free.

              The chorus, and the spectator, are "in" the drama too. The tragedy gets its power, its poignancy, from the very fact that you, and I, know who Oedipus' mother and father were, but Oedipuis doesn't. Even though he solves the riddle of the Sphinx, what Oedipus does not know is something about himself, and that lack of insight into himself becomes his downfall.

              What about Socrates? Certainly, Socrates met his fate, in the Phaedo, when he drank the hemlock. But, the Crito makes it clear that, in meeting this fate, Socrates chose his destiny.

              Hb3g

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I keep thinking about the connection between the word authority and the word author, and, it seems to me, that is what true authority really is, it is being an author, and, by that, of course, I do mean being the author of the book of one's own life, taking charge of one's own destiny, even in the face of so-called fate, or absurdity, or whatever it is you settle upon and call that which is absolutely anti-thetical to the spirit of human freedom.
              > >
              > > Funny thing though.
              > >
              > > The whole idea of being the author of one's own destiny goes as far back as philosophy itself. The existentialists didn't invent that idea. They just resurrected it with a sweetly antagonistic twist in the face of a plethora of various kinds of fundamentalism, and not just the religious ones either, like the fundamentalism of scientism, or the fundamentalism of certain political ideologies, indeed, the whole concept of ideology, etcetera.
              > >
              > > The only kind of authority that deserves recognition, as such, would be self-authority, precisely, because self-authority is the only authentic authority there is.
              > >
              > > But that isn't just existentialism. That is philosophy itself.
              > >
              > > Read the Greeks.
              >
              > Herman, The way I read the Greeks, leaves me feeling it is quite unthinkable to 'take charge of one's own destiny'. Imagine telling that to Oedipus, for instance! Destiny is an awesome concept, a reality once encountered that must be lived with in the struggle for self-command. The reality, in my own experience, can be so overwhelming that it provokes amnesia, which might give rise to apparently contradictory statements. Reason is indispensable, but existence demands that it find its rightful place, in what may be a long and agonising quest for freedom. Louise
              >
              > >
              > > Seriously. The way I see it, with the advent of existentialism, philosophy has come home, once again, to its true vocation, the one and only thing it has ever been about, and that is the challenge, to us, to rise above the muck and the mire, and to raise ourselves up to...
              > >
              > > the level of...
              > >
              > > Freedom.
              > >
              > > So...
              > >
              > > Does that make, of existentialism, a moral philsophy?
              > >
              > > You bet it does!
              > >
              > > Freedom is not some abstract metaphysical postulate that must be assumed in order to make sense out of human moral sentiments. Freedom is the concrete attainment of the highest possible good for man. Freedom is not just an empty possibility; rather, freedom is the most possible of all human actualities.
              > >
              > > I believe in that. I trust it. It guides my thoughts and my actions. And, I see this trust in freedom as exactly the same thing as placing my trust... in reason.
              > >
              > > Hb3g
              > >
              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Many people are really put off by the concept of a maleable right and wrong. Who is the authority in your life? If it is not you, you are not an existentialist.
              > > > Now we see a different sort of moralist ideologue. With the protestant right wing on the defence, the catholic right wing is filling the stupidity void. These catholics are a new strain of pathogenic organism as they arise from the lower class, immigrant church into the upper middle class.
              > > > For many years a gradual liberalism had left many catholics just ignoring conservative Rome. The new, more wealthy catholics find right wing politics more appealing to their pocketbooks and authoritarian ideals. The problem is that before they could change their political yard signs the recession knocked them back into the middle class. Now we are left with a group of stiff necked moralists who have no money to push their narrow agendae. They are the students at Notre Dame whose parents cannot afford to have them there. They are hard core , right wing ideologues who can no longer afford their station. This situation is unstable and the Presidential ,commencement visit is pointing to the collision of money and mores.
              > > > Obama is far too clever a politician to insult them. He wants their votes. Should they anger him he is in a position to manipulate them into change or political annhilation. Bloody babies and inflamatory signs will be used by all sort of social conservatives but I am sure the administration will be able to sort out the factions. There will be a great deal of pictures taken and having yourself known as a radical opponent of modernism could easily come with negative repurcussions. I hope so, I hope they make total fools of themselves as they have chosen the low road . The cultural wars rage on but this new roster of players has new factions that are only beginning to expose themselves. Bill
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • louise
              Herman, Herman :-). How differently we view this question. The story is presented to us in dramatic form. It is about what an individual does not know, and
              Message 6 of 8 , May 14, 2009
                Herman, Herman :-).

                How differently we view this question. The story is presented to us in dramatic form. It is about what an individual does not know, and cannot, at that particular moment, know. That is the point of destiny, in its awesomeness. You and I do not know certain facts, and the lack of such knowing may kill us tomorrow. We are alive as existents, not as actors or spectators in a drama. Insight is not merely a matter of diligence and sincerity. We are situated in a cosmic order whose ultimate nature is beyond our knowing. Your interpretation seems to reduce it all to some psycho-therapeutic morality tale.

                As for Socrates, I am unsure how any comment is possible: my own perceptions seems so divergent from what is considered sane, that I prefer only to acknowledge the question.

                Louise

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...> wrote:
                >
                > Louise:
                >
                > But there was a reason why Oedipus met the fate that he did. He was blind to certain basic facts of life; i.e., like who his mother was, or, who his father was. Had he known these facts, he probably would not have met the fate that he did.
                >
                > That, I think, is the whole point of that tragedy. That it is only our lack of insight (into ourselves) that enslaves us. The corollary, the positive lesson, is that insight (into ourselves) can set us free.
                >
                > The chorus, and the spectator, are "in" the drama too. The tragedy gets its power, its poignancy, from the very fact that you, and I, know who Oedipus' mother and father were, but Oedipuis doesn't. Even though he solves the riddle of the Sphinx, what Oedipus does not know is something about himself, and that lack of insight into himself becomes his downfall.
                >
                > What about Socrates? Certainly, Socrates met his fate, in the Phaedo, when he drank the hemlock. But, the Crito makes it clear that, in meeting this fate, Socrates chose his destiny.
                >
                > Hb3g
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
                > >
                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > I keep thinking about the connection between the word authority and the word author, and, it seems to me, that is what true authority really is, it is being an author, and, by that, of course, I do mean being the author of the book of one's own life, taking charge of one's own destiny, even in the face of so-called fate, or absurdity, or whatever it is you settle upon and call that which is absolutely anti-thetical to the spirit of human freedom.
                > > >
                > > > Funny thing though.
                > > >
                > > > The whole idea of being the author of one's own destiny goes as far back as philosophy itself. The existentialists didn't invent that idea. They just resurrected it with a sweetly antagonistic twist in the face of a plethora of various kinds of fundamentalism, and not just the religious ones either, like the fundamentalism of scientism, or the fundamentalism of certain political ideologies, indeed, the whole concept of ideology, etcetera.
                > > >
                > > > The only kind of authority that deserves recognition, as such, would be self-authority, precisely, because self-authority is the only authentic authority there is.
                > > >
                > > > But that isn't just existentialism. That is philosophy itself.
                > > >
                > > > Read the Greeks.
                > >
                > > Herman, The way I read the Greeks, leaves me feeling it is quite unthinkable to 'take charge of one's own destiny'. Imagine telling that to Oedipus, for instance! Destiny is an awesome concept, a reality once encountered that must be lived with in the struggle for self-command. The reality, in my own experience, can be so overwhelming that it provokes amnesia, which might give rise to apparently contradictory statements. Reason is indispensable, but existence demands that it find its rightful place, in what may be a long and agonising quest for freedom. Louise
                > >
                > > >
                > > > Seriously. The way I see it, with the advent of existentialism, philosophy has come home, once again, to its true vocation, the one and only thing it has ever been about, and that is the challenge, to us, to rise above the muck and the mire, and to raise ourselves up to...
                > > >
                > > > the level of...
                > > >
                > > > Freedom.
                > > >
                > > > So...
                > > >
                > > > Does that make, of existentialism, a moral philsophy?
                > > >
                > > > You bet it does!
                > > >
                > > > Freedom is not some abstract metaphysical postulate that must be assumed in order to make sense out of human moral sentiments. Freedom is the concrete attainment of the highest possible good for man. Freedom is not just an empty possibility; rather, freedom is the most possible of all human actualities.
                > > >
                > > > I believe in that. I trust it. It guides my thoughts and my actions. And, I see this trust in freedom as exactly the same thing as placing my trust... in reason.
                > > >
                > > > Hb3g
                > > >
                > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Many people are really put off by the concept of a maleable right and wrong. Who is the authority in your life? If it is not you, you are not an existentialist.
                > > > > Now we see a different sort of moralist ideologue. With the protestant right wing on the defence, the catholic right wing is filling the stupidity void. These catholics are a new strain of pathogenic organism as they arise from the lower class, immigrant church into the upper middle class.
                > > > > For many years a gradual liberalism had left many catholics just ignoring conservative Rome. The new, more wealthy catholics find right wing politics more appealing to their pocketbooks and authoritarian ideals. The problem is that before they could change their political yard signs the recession knocked them back into the middle class. Now we are left with a group of stiff necked moralists who have no money to push their narrow agendae. They are the students at Notre Dame whose parents cannot afford to have them there. They are hard core , right wing ideologues who can no longer afford their station. This situation is unstable and the Presidential ,commencement visit is pointing to the collision of money and mores.
                > > > > Obama is far too clever a politician to insult them. He wants their votes. Should they anger him he is in a position to manipulate them into change or political annhilation. Bloody babies and inflamatory signs will be used by all sort of social conservatives but I am sure the administration will be able to sort out the factions. There will be a great deal of pictures taken and having yourself known as a radical opponent of modernism could easily come with negative repurcussions. I hope so, I hope they make total fools of themselves as they have chosen the low road . The cultural wars rage on but this new roster of players has new factions that are only beginning to expose themselves. Bill
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • Herman B. Triplegood
                Louise: How differently we view this question. Hb3g: Well we can t all be the same. Nor should we all be the same. Variety is the spice of life! Louise: The
                Message 7 of 8 , May 15, 2009
                  Louise: How differently we view this question.

                  Hb3g: Well we can't all be the same. Nor should we all be the same. Variety is the spice of life!

                  Louise: The story is presented to us in dramatic form.

                  Hb3g: Let's explore together what that really means. It isn't as obvious as we might "off the cuff" think it is.

                  Louise: It is about what an individual does not know, and cannot, at that particular moment, know.

                  Hb3g: Correct.

                  Louise: That is the point of destiny, in its awesomeness.

                  Hb3g: No, not really. That is the point of fate. Destiny is something altogether different. Although, in colloquial English, the distinction between fate and destiny gets pretty blurred. But, the Greeks, and the Greek and Latin Stoics, had a clear cut distinction in mind. Check out the first Tractate of the third Ennead of Plotinus. That's fate. But, the second and third Tractates are about Providence. Providence? Yes. That's destiny. I played upon that distinction in my last remarks about the contrast between the Socrates of the Phaedo (Socrates meets his fate) and the Socrates of the Crito (Socrates chooses his destiny).

                  Louise: You and I do not know certain facts, and the lack of such knowing may kill us tomorrow.

                  Hb3g: You got that right. One of my favorite sayings is this one: "What about what we don't know?" But, let's keep in mind that what we don't know might also NOT be killing us, but actually sustaining us, i.e., keeping us alive. I am not saying that ignorance is a good thing. Heavens no! Of course not! But, that which we do not know, NOT our ignorance of it, could be either good or bad.

                  Louise: We are alive as existents, not as actors or spectators in a drama.

                  Hb3g: Hmmm... Actually, that is what I thought I was saying when I said, "The chorus, and the spectator, are 'in' the drama too." Think about it this way: participatory drama. Is there such a thing? Has there ever been such a thing? Yes. And yes. Participatory drama is what the Eleusinian Mysteries were. There was no passive audience there. It was more than just a spectacle. It was a rite of passage thattransformed all participants, actors, and so-called spectators, alike. At first they were Mystai, and then, they became Epopt. There are people around who still do that kind of thing today, and they really do understand what it is that they are doing when they do that. But, to most of us, looking at it from the outside, not being participants in it, it just looks dark and scary, because we haven't experienced it, therefore, we cannot understand it. But it isn't dark and scary. Not really. It is just... well... plain old fun!

                  Louise: Insight is not merely a matter of diligence and sincerity.

                  Hb3g: We should explore this together. There is a whole lot of insight to be had about the true nature of insight. Diligence and sincerity do count for something, an awful lot, in my opinion, along the way.

                  Louise: We are situated in a cosmic order whose ultimate nature is beyond our knowing.

                  Hb3g: True.

                  Louise: Your interpretation seems to reduce it all to some psycho-therapeutic morality tale.

                  Hb3g: Now, how did you get that from what all I said? And besides, what's so wrong with morality anyway? Don't you want to be a goodie two shoes too?

                  Louise: As for Socrates, I am unsure how any comment is possible: my own perceptions seems so divergent from what is considered sane, that I prefer only to acknowledge the question.

                  Hb3g: I dare you. I double dare you. There is a method to every madness. And, there is a madness to every method.

                  Hb3g

                  >
                  > Louise
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Louise:
                  > >
                  > > But there was a reason why Oedipus met the fate that he did. He was blind to certain basic facts of life; i.e., like who his mother was, or, who his father was. Had he known these facts, he probably would not have met the fate that he did.
                  > >
                  > > That, I think, is the whole point of that tragedy. That it is only our lack of insight (into ourselves) that enslaves us. The corollary, the positive lesson, is that insight (into ourselves) can set us free.
                  > >
                  > > The chorus, and the spectator, are "in" the drama too. The tragedy gets its power, its poignancy, from the very fact that you, and I, know who Oedipus' mother and father were, but Oedipuis doesn't. Even though he solves the riddle of the Sphinx, what Oedipus does not know is something about himself, and that lack of insight into himself becomes his downfall.
                  > >
                  > > What about Socrates? Certainly, Socrates met his fate, in the Phaedo, when he drank the hemlock. But, the Crito makes it clear that, in meeting this fate, Socrates chose his destiny.
                  > >
                  > > Hb3g
                  > >
                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I keep thinking about the connection between the word authority and the word author, and, it seems to me, that is what true authority really is, it is being an author, and, by that, of course, I do mean being the author of the book of one's own life, taking charge of one's own destiny, even in the face of so-called fate, or absurdity, or whatever it is you settle upon and call that which is absolutely anti-thetical to the spirit of human freedom.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Funny thing though.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > The whole idea of being the author of one's own destiny goes as far back as philosophy itself. The existentialists didn't invent that idea. They just resurrected it with a sweetly antagonistic twist in the face of a plethora of various kinds of fundamentalism, and not just the religious ones either, like the fundamentalism of scientism, or the fundamentalism of certain political ideologies, indeed, the whole concept of ideology, etcetera.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > The only kind of authority that deserves recognition, as such, would be self-authority, precisely, because self-authority is the only authentic authority there is.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > But that isn't just existentialism. That is philosophy itself.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Read the Greeks.
                  > > >
                  > > > Herman, The way I read the Greeks, leaves me feeling it is quite unthinkable to 'take charge of one's own destiny'. Imagine telling that to Oedipus, for instance! Destiny is an awesome concept, a reality once encountered that must be lived with in the struggle for self-command. The reality, in my own experience, can be so overwhelming that it provokes amnesia, which might give rise to apparently contradictory statements. Reason is indispensable, but existence demands that it find its rightful place, in what may be a long and agonising quest for freedom. Louise
                  > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Seriously. The way I see it, with the advent of existentialism, philosophy has come home, once again, to its true vocation, the one and only thing it has ever been about, and that is the challenge, to us, to rise above the muck and the mire, and to raise ourselves up to...
                  > > > >
                  > > > > the level of...
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Freedom.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > So...
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Does that make, of existentialism, a moral philsophy?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > You bet it does!
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Freedom is not some abstract metaphysical postulate that must be assumed in order to make sense out of human moral sentiments. Freedom is the concrete attainment of the highest possible good for man. Freedom is not just an empty possibility; rather, freedom is the most possible of all human actualities.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I believe in that. I trust it. It guides my thoughts and my actions. And, I see this trust in freedom as exactly the same thing as placing my trust... in reason.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Hb3g
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Many people are really put off by the concept of a maleable right and wrong. Who is the authority in your life? If it is not you, you are not an existentialist.
                  > > > > > Now we see a different sort of moralist ideologue. With the protestant right wing on the defence, the catholic right wing is filling the stupidity void. These catholics are a new strain of pathogenic organism as they arise from the lower class, immigrant church into the upper middle class.
                  > > > > > For many years a gradual liberalism had left many catholics just ignoring conservative Rome. The new, more wealthy catholics find right wing politics more appealing to their pocketbooks and authoritarian ideals. The problem is that before they could change their political yard signs the recession knocked them back into the middle class. Now we are left with a group of stiff necked moralists who have no money to push their narrow agendae. They are the students at Notre Dame whose parents cannot afford to have them there. They are hard core , right wing ideologues who can no longer afford their station. This situation is unstable and the Presidential ,commencement visit is pointing to the collision of money and mores.
                  > > > > > Obama is far too clever a politician to insult them. He wants their votes. Should they anger him he is in a position to manipulate them into change or political annhilation. Bloody babies and inflamatory signs will be used by all sort of social conservatives but I am sure the administration will be able to sort out the factions. There will be a great deal of pictures taken and having yourself known as a radical opponent of modernism could easily come with negative repurcussions. I hope so, I hope they make total fools of themselves as they have chosen the low road . The cultural wars rage on but this new roster of players has new factions that are only beginning to expose themselves. Bill
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • tom
                  Herman, You write Louise: But there was a reason why Oedipus met the fate that he did. He was blind to certain basic facts of life; i.e., like who his mother
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 15, 2009
                    Herman,

                    You write





                    Louise:

                    But there was a reason why Oedipus met the fate that he did. He was blind to certain basic facts of life; i.e., like who his mother was, or, who his father was. Had he known these facts, he probably would not have met the fate that he did.

                    That, I think, is the whole point of that tragedy. That it is only our lack of insight (into ourselves) that enslaves us. The corollary, the positive lesson, is that insight (into ourselves) can set us free.

                    The chorus, and the spectator, are "in" the drama too. The tragedy gets its power, its poignancy, from the very fact that you, and I, know who Oedipus' mother and father were, but Oedipuis doesn't. Even though he solves the riddle of the Sphinx, what Oedipus does not know is something about himself, and that lack of insight into himself becomes his downfall.

                    What about Socrates? Certainly, Socrates met his fate, in the Phaedo, when he drank the hemlock. But, the Crito makes it clear that, in meeting this fate, Socrates chose his destiny.

                    Hb3g

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > I keep thinking about the connection between the word authority and the word author, and, it seems to me, that is what true authority really is, it is being an author, and, by that, of course, I do mean being the author of the book of one's own life, taking charge of one's own destiny, even in the face of so-called fate, or absurdity, or whatever it is you settle upon and call that which is absolutely anti-thetical to the spirit of human freedom.
                    > >
                    > > Funny thing though.
                    > >
                    > > The whole idea of being the author of one's own destiny goes as far back as philosophy itself. The existentialists didn't invent that idea. They just resurrected it with a sweetly antagonistic twist in the face of a plethora of various kinds of fundamentalism, and not just the religious ones either, like the fundamentalism of scientism, or the fundamentalism of certain political ideologies, indeed, the whole concept of ideology, etcetera.
                    > >
                    > > The only kind of authority that deserves recognition, as such, would be self-authority, precisely, because self-authority is the only authentic authority there is.
                    > >
                    > > But that isn't just existentialism. That is philosophy itself.
                    > >
                    > > Read the Greeks.
                    >
                    > Herman, The way I read the Greeks, leaves me feeling it is quite unthinkable to 'take charge of one's own destiny'. Imagine telling that to Oedipus, for instance! Destiny is an awesome concept, a reality once encountered that must be lived with in the struggle for self-command. The reality, in my own experience, can be so overwhelming that it provokes amnesia, which might give rise to apparently contradictory statements. Reason is indispensable, but existence demands that it find its rightful place, in what may be a long and agonising quest for freedom. Louise
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Seriously. The way I see it, with the advent of existentialism, philosophy has come home, once again, to its true vocation, the one and only thing it has ever been about, and that is the challenge, to us, to rise above the muck and the mire, and to raise ourselves up to...
                    > >
                    > > the level of...
                    > >
                    > > Freedom.
                    > >
                    > > So...
                    > >
                    > > Does that make, of existentialism, a moral philsophy?
                    > >
                    > > You bet it does!
                    > >
                    > > Freedom is not some abstract metaphysical postulate that must be assumed in order to make sense out of human moral sentiments. Freedom is the concrete attainment of the highest possible good for man. Freedom is not just an empty possibility; rather, freedom is the most possible of all human actualities.
                    > >
                    > > I believe in that. I trust it. It guides my thoughts and my actions. And, I see this trust in freedom as exactly the same thing as placing my trust... in reason.
                    > >
                    > > Hb3g



                    I was reminded of the Oedipus complex named by Freud. The Wikpe paragragh below says Freud naming it such is a misinterpretation of the play; however, I find it ironic that psychoanalytical findings over the last 100 years or so have frequently shown how the subconcious can act to frustrate our concious intentions through accidents, illnesses, etc. In talking about being author of our lives, the Robert Burns' quote "The best laid plans of mice and men often go aglay" is an apt statement of how plans can be intelligantly formulated by the concious mind, but frustrated by the subconcious. The powers attributed to fate, destiny, the Gods etc in ancient Greek thought might be reconciled to the more modern idea of the subconcious. I recall a quote by Jung to the affect that the term subconcious like the terms God and the Devil are borderline concepts referring to something we dont know too much about, but can perceive its affects.



                    Tom












                    Main article: Oedipus complex
                    See also: Electra complex
                    Sigmund Freud used the name The Oedipus complex to explain the origin of certain neuroses in childhood. It is defined as a male child's unconscious desire for the exclusive love of his mother. This desire includes jealousy towards the father and the unconscious wish for that parent's death. Oedipus himself, as portrayed in the myth, did not suffer from this neurosis - at least, not towards Jocasta, whom he only met as an adult. (If anything, such feelings would have been directed at Merope - but there is no hint of that.) However, Freud reasoned that the ancient Greek audience, which heard the story told or saw the plays based on it, did know that Oedipus was actually killing his father and marrying his mother; the story being continually told and played therefore reflected a preoccupation with the theme. However, the title of this complex has nothing to do with the ancient play itself, it is, in fact, a misinterpretation of the play.


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.