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

Re: [existlist] Re: questions of instinct survival etc.

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Bill, You wrote a few posts back Trust seems ,to me ,more a matter of mutual need than it is related to faith. Mutual needs and especially goals build the
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 20, 2009
      Bill,

      You wrote a few posts back

      Trust seems ,to me ,more a matter of mutual need than it is related to faith. Mutual needs and especially goals build the strongest interhuman bonds. All the shit about patriatism and family are bold words full of hot air. That is secound tier sales technique and anyone with a brain checks it off as such.

      Of course patriotism and family are tied in with mutual needs. The patriarchal family proved to a large extent a organic entity upon which powerful commercial, agricultural and fighting coalitions were built. A good argument could be made that the growth of theistic religions occured because they gave religious support to create patriarchal lineage.And of course patriarchal dynasties encouraged a man to have long range goals going well beyond his own lifetime as far as building a dynasty. This is of course the reconciling factor in guys like Joe Kennedy being at the same time a tremendous womanizer as well as a big contributor to te Catholic Church. The Catholic Church encouraged women to have attitudes like his Rose, which was necesary to create a lineage of Kennedys. Without the church scaring the hell out of the Rose Kennedys and if she played tit for tat with Joseph they most would probably be Keenedys in name only. As for patriotism, charismic politicians can create strong bonds of such for periods of time whither they be FDR, Churchil, or Hitler.

      Tom


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: William
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:10 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: questions of instinct survival etc.




      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
      >
      > It is difficult to disagree with what either of you have written. The public or common seems untrustworthy to me, because it is crafted by powerful interests. It appears to be the same as mine, or any other ordinary individual's, but how do I know with any certainty? Since I can't even answer my own question, perhaps I'll gain insight from you, or reject it outright as meaningless.
      >
      > Equilibrium is my guiding principle. An escape from years of deluded loyalties, personal and political, has left me feistier than expected and extremely defensive about my right of expression. So if anyone perceives me as a chameleon or coward, so be it. There are few I trust with my complete sincerity. I don't even trust myself not to change my mind.
      >
      > There are many ways to live a life., and if this group is an adequate sampling, nature is quite diverse. So yes, the public is political; and depending on how broadly you define that, chaotic. The common is complex, but the personal can be simplified. At a very basic level, individuals probably have much in common with others. It seems though once philosophy and politics, by means of art and power, shine an artifical light on human nature, it is difficult to discover what that common interest might be. Mary
      >Mary, For me, and it seems you ,that is where the science and existentialism intersect. The skepticism is magnified by double source and we become very wily critters. Now I just throw out faith but trust I have not considered that closely. I remember a time I had just lost a grand on a business law decision. I was out with the lawyer and they were looking for waitresses at the joint .I was pissed off about losing a grand and told the lawyer I would show him how to make money. I asked for an application and filled it out and turned it in. Sure enough the chain was sued for sex discrimination and it was a nine hundred dollar pay out to me. I showed the cheque to the lawyer and he called me a crook. I told him he was incompetant. Trust seems ,to me ,more a matter of mutual need than it is related to faith. Mutual needs and especially goals build the strongest interhuman bonds. All the shit about patriatism and family are bold words full of hot air. That is secound tier sales technique and anyone with a brain checks it off as such.
      Someone with the skepticism of Schopenhaur and the rigor of Alexander Bell will be a hard sell. I would fit Mary in that group. I have seen her develope it over time and do not think her arrogant in displaying such a viewpoint. Bill





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