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

Re: [existlist] Re: Neitche the Kid

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Mary, I agree that a person can be philosophically solitary and remain in social solidarity. I included mystical practices in the modes of expression in which
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 8, 2009
      Mary,

      I agree that a person can be philosophically solitary and remain in social solidarity. I included mystical practices in the modes of expression in which humans have expressed longing for transcendence and unity. Within those parameters, the Buddha awakening under the Bodi Tree is expressing these longings in a quite solitary and peaceful manner. During the cultural revolution of the 60s and 70s, a good case can be made that both the hawks and the peaceniks were expressing the same longings. It was just expressed in opposite ways. Hippies tripping and having love-ins is one mode of expression of such transcendence. A Marine jumping on a handgrinaide to save his buddies is another. To quote Bob Dylan in "Tangled up in Blue" "We always did feel the same. we just started with a different point of view.". Bill likes to quote Dylan every now and then.





      The Artist

      The artist is a man on the edge.

      The artist is often a man tempted to jump off the ledge.

      Between the artist and his visions;

      The reality that life is a bitch, is the wedge.

      Groovy man

      by the Cool Cat

      www.thecoolcat.net



      Peace,

      Tom



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Mary
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:48 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Neitche the Kid



      Tom,

      I long for diversion, not transcendence. These expressions seem to me very human instincts and will, nothing beyond simply being human. One can be philosophically solitary and remain a remain in social solidarity. The danger of the need to belong lies in trust and regrets.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
      Yes, this longing is dangerous, but so is life. I believe the deep yearning for
      transcendence is expressed in things apparently diverse as romantic love,
      parental love, militaries, gangs, and various mystical practices





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mary
      Tom, I further argue that this longing is dangerous, because it becomes prey to the propagandists, those who market, bring us the news, purvey the common
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 10, 2009
        Tom,

        I further argue that this longing is dangerous, because it becomes prey to the propagandists, those who market, bring us the news, purvey the 'common' interest, and recruit for various causes.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
        Tom,

        This statement is why I admire Camus, his sense of the absurd and his grasp of
        Nietzsche. We argue that this longing is dangerous.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
        But using the longing in the human soul for some form of transcendence, unity,
        and life purpose, powerful movements have been created for good or ill.
      • tom
        Mary, I agree there is much danger involved, but there is danger in sexual longing, dangers in science etc. I believe human progress involved utilizing
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 10, 2009
          Mary,

          I agree there is much danger involved, but there is danger in sexual longing, dangers in science etc. I believe human progress involved utilizing longings and drives in the most constructive ways. Whither this wll be accomplished, or whither mankind will destroy itself is still up in the air. But this desire to transcend our biological shells and embrace a bigger self is and always has been very strong in humanity.

          A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

          Tom
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Mary
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:44 AM
          Subject: [existlist] Re: Neitche the Kid



          Tom,

          I further argue that this longing is dangerous, because it becomes prey to the propagandists, those who market, bring us the news, purvey the 'common' interest, and recruit for various causes.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
          Tom,

          This statement is why I admire Camus, his sense of the absurd and his grasp of
          Nietzsche. We argue that this longing is dangerous.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
          But using the longing in the human soul for some form of transcendence, unity,
          and life purpose, powerful movements have been created for good or ill.





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mary
          Tom, This is only one melody, but for the last seven years I ve been developing my own counterpoint, balancing if you will, with a Nietzschean strain. I don t
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 10, 2009
            Tom,

            This is only one melody, but for the last seven years I've been developing my own counterpoint, balancing if you will, with a Nietzschean strain. I don't know if humans have always wanted to transcend or discover a bigger self. I suspect they simply wanted more of the good things found in this life. Community or solidarity is where and what you make of it. Of course there is longing, but it's better left for the individual to decide. The absurdist lives in an artistic tension between longing and fulfillment, desire and danger. Reevaluate and care as you will. You can only make your own meaning, even alongside others.

            Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
            I agree there is much danger involved, but there is danger in sexual longing,
            dangers in science etc. I believe human progress involved utilizing longings and
            drives in the most constructive ways. Whither this wll be accomplished, or
            whither mankind will destroy itself is still up in the air. But this desire to
            transcend our biological shells and embrace a bigger self is and always has been
            very strong in humanity.
          • tom
            Mary, I am not insisting on any meaning for anybody. I am only offering my own perceptions.As for transcendence versus personal acquisitions, as a polytheist I
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 10, 2009
              Mary,

              I am not insisting on any meaning for anybody. I am only offering my own perceptions.As for transcendence versus personal acquisitions, as a polytheist I tend to pereceive human motivations and actions as the result of a number of values and drives. I certainly wouldn't argue with the fact that much of human activity is motivated by the will to survive, the will for your lineage to survive, the will to power, sexual drives, as well as the means of production prevalent in a given space/time. In actuality, it is usually difficult to isolate these factors, because I believe they are often entwined. The right interprets the Fort Hood massacre in terms of alliances with terrorists;whereas the left interprets it in terms of the Major's stresses, lonliness etc. I suspect the truth may well be a combination of all of the above. His psychological state could very well predispose him to make alliances with terrorists, and eventually take trhe action he took.

              The psychologist, Abraham Maslow proposed


              There are five different levels in Maslow's hierarchy of needs:

              1.. Physiological Needs
              These include the most basic needs that are vital to survival, such as the need for water, air, food and sleep. Maslow believed that these needs are the most basic and instinctive needs in the hierarchy because all needs become secondary until these physiological needs are met.


              2.. Security Needs
              These include needs for safety and security. Security needs are important for survival, but they are not as demanding as the physiological needs. Examples of security needs include a desire for steady employment, health insurance, safe neighborhoods and shelter from the environment.


              3.. Social Needs
              These include needs for belonging, love and affection. Maslow considered these needs to be less basic than physiological and security needs. Relationships such as friendships, romantic attachments and families help fulfill this need for companionship and acceptance, as does involvement in social, community or religious groups.


              4.. Esteem Needs
              After the first three needs have been satisfied, esteem needs becomes increasingly important. These include the need for things that reflect on self-esteem, personal worth, social recognition and accomplishment.


              5.. Self-actualizing Needs
              This is the highest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Self-actualizing people are self-aware, concerned with personal growth, less concerned with the opinions of others and interested fulfilling their potential.
              Of course, I would say to Maslow that many things that are acts of heroism show the person sacraficing lower needs like the needs for security and even life to a cause or other individuals.In general, I believe actions in which all the drives partake are likely to be more effective and fullfilling. To the extent that there is a good deal of conflict between the drives, the ones that are ignored or repressed are likely to in effect act as subconcious insurgencies against the accomplishment of such tasks.

              Tom

              Tom
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Mary
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:06 PM
              Subject: [existlist] Re: Neitche the Kid



              Tom,

              This is only one melody, but for the last seven years I've been developing my own counterpoint, balancing if you will, with a Nietzschean strain. I don't know if humans have always wanted to transcend or discover a bigger self. I suspect they simply wanted more of the good things found in this life. Community or solidarity is where and what you make of it. Of course there is longing, but it's better left for the individual to decide. The absurdist lives in an artistic tension between longing and fulfillment, desire and danger. Reevaluate and care as you will. You can only make your own meaning, even alongside others.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
              I agree there is much danger involved, but there is danger in sexual longing,
              dangers in science etc. I believe human progress involved utilizing longings and
              drives in the most constructive ways. Whither this wll be accomplished, or
              whither mankind will destroy itself is still up in the air. But this desire to
              transcend our biological shells and embrace a bigger self is and always has been
              very strong in humanity.





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mary
              Tom, I agree there is a combination of values and drives, categorized or not, which comprise human activity. They are the `good stuff , life itself. Yet,
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 11, 2009
                Tom,

                I agree there is a combination of values and drives, categorized or not, which comprise human activity. They are the `good stuff', life itself. Yet, perspective is* the difference. I reject polytheism and transcendence, because they don't serve me in any useful fashion. As I've said before, I don't require god/s and transcendence in order to appreciate something as grand as the universe or my in/significance in it. Values and drives are human, for better or worse, and existentialism is a call to revaluate that which doesn't serve us. If you decide polytheism and transcendence serve you, so be it. The feeling of transcendence is also the result of suffering and awareness of death. The danger doesn't lie in the risk of making decisions: the danger is in allowing others to recruit us against our instincts, in allowing others to lead us into submission or nihilism.

                The absurd is the clash of the given world with human desire, so I agree with Camus and Nietzsche that creators do not need to transcend their humanity. They only need to create. Do art, music or literature destroy? If anything, they create bonds and have even been credited with ending apartheid, the former USSR, and who knows what else. Yet even art can be subverted for propaganda. It has that in common with `longing'. I am not telling anyone, including myself, not to desire or create. I'm simply saying there is nothing to transcend. All that you are or comprehend is the result of being human. What is beautiful about the absurd perspective is that it doesn't lead to murder/suicide or transcendence. The absurd lives uncomfortably between hope and acceptance.

                Mary
              • tom
                Mary, To a large extent I agree with your statements. When I refer to poytheism, I don t mean to imply that I am referring to gods in the sense that they are
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 11, 2009
                  Mary,

                  To a large extent I agree with your statements. When I refer to poytheism, I don't mean to imply that I am referring to gods in the sense that they are individual beings. Rather, I see Gods representing drives and values. So my reference to my being a polytheist meant that rather than attempting to reduce human motivation down to one aspect, whither it be sex or power;I believe views that emphasize the interplay of different forces are more on the mark. Certainly, as more individuals are able to examine the introjections they have taken in from society, it is the best of times, and it is the worst of times. In the past, I have made reference in these posts to the contrasts of organic and open societies which corresponds to traditional to critical thinking. In an organic society, individuals are born into certain roles in the collective, and traditional thinking is the mode which the individual uses to fullfill his or her roles. Whereas open socities by nature are in flux, and the individual will tend to use critical thinking to determine what is of value and interest to them.

                  I do believe the transformation can only profitably proceed at a certain pace, and I believe much of US foreign policy does not take account of the harm done by too rapidly disrupting tribal customs.

                  Tom
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Mary
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:23 AM
                  Subject: [existlist] why transcendence?



                  Tom,

                  I agree there is a combination of values and drives, categorized or not, which comprise human activity. They are the `good stuff', life itself. Yet, perspective is* the difference. I reject polytheism and transcendence, because they don't serve me in any useful fashion. As I've said before, I don't require god/s and transcendence in order to appreciate something as grand as the universe or my in/significance in it. Values and drives are human, for better or worse, and existentialism is a call to revaluate that which doesn't serve us. If you decide polytheism and transcendence serve you, so be it. The feeling of transcendence is also the result of suffering and awareness of death. The danger doesn't lie in the risk of making decisions: the danger is in allowing others to recruit us against our instincts, in allowing others to lead us into submission or nihilism.

                  The absurd is the clash of the given world with human desire, so I agree with Camus and Nietzsche that creators do not need to transcend their humanity. They only need to create. Do art, music or literature destroy? If anything, they create bonds and have even been credited with ending apartheid, the former USSR, and who knows what else. Yet even art can be subverted for propaganda. It has that in common with `longing'. I am not telling anyone, including myself, not to desire or create. I'm simply saying there is nothing to transcend. All that you are or comprehend is the result of being human. What is beautiful about the absurd perspective is that it doesn't lead to murder/suicide or transcendence. The absurd lives uncomfortably between hope and acceptance.

                  Mary





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Mary
                  Thanks, Tom, for confessing your appreciation of mythology. Quite frankly, I m relieved. I agree that the history of the U.S., and that of the New World West
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 11, 2009
                    Thanks, Tom, for confessing your appreciation of mythology. Quite frankly, I'm relieved. I agree that the history of the U.S., and that of the New World West has been one of great impatience. The existential question is how does the individual affect the power structure which makes these decisions, because it is the modern impatience of power that wreaks havoc with older cultures. Power is what drives such insistence, but adaptation and assimilation are existential tasks. Mary

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Mary,
                    >
                    > To a large extent I agree with your statements. When I refer to poytheism, I don't mean to imply that I am referring to gods in the sense that they are individual beings. Rather, I see Gods representing drives and values. So my reference to my being a polytheist meant that rather than attempting to reduce human motivation down to one aspect, whither it be sex or power;I believe views that emphasize the interplay of different forces are more on the mark. Certainly, as more individuals are able to examine the introjections they have taken in from society, it is the best of times, and it is the worst of times. In the past, I have made reference in these posts to the contrasts of organic and open societies which corresponds to traditional to critical thinking. In an organic society, individuals are born into certain roles in the collective, and traditional thinking is the mode which the individual uses to fullfill his or her roles. Whereas open socities by nature are in flux, and the individual will tend to use critical thinking to determine what is of value and interest to them.
                    >
                    > I do believe the transformation can only profitably proceed at a certain pace, and I believe much of US foreign policy does not take account of the harm done by too rapidly disrupting tribal customs.
                    >
                    > Tom
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: Mary
                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:23 AM
                    > Subject: [existlist] why transcendence?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Tom,
                    >
                    > I agree there is a combination of values and drives, categorized or not, which comprise human activity. They are the `good stuff', life itself. Yet, perspective is* the difference. I reject polytheism and transcendence, because they don't serve me in any useful fashion. As I've said before, I don't require god/s and transcendence in order to appreciate something as grand as the universe or my in/significance in it. Values and drives are human, for better or worse, and existentialism is a call to revaluate that which doesn't serve us. If you decide polytheism and transcendence serve you, so be it. The feeling of transcendence is also the result of suffering and awareness of death. The danger doesn't lie in the risk of making decisions: the danger is in allowing others to recruit us against our instincts, in allowing others to lead us into submission or nihilism.
                    >
                    > The absurd is the clash of the given world with human desire, so I agree with Camus and Nietzsche that creators do not need to transcend their humanity. They only need to create. Do art, music or literature destroy? If anything, they create bonds and have even been credited with ending apartheid, the former USSR, and who knows what else. Yet even art can be subverted for propaganda. It has that in common with `longing'. I am not telling anyone, including myself, not to desire or create. I'm simply saying there is nothing to transcend. All that you are or comprehend is the result of being human. What is beautiful about the absurd perspective is that it doesn't lead to murder/suicide or transcendence. The absurd lives uncomfortably between hope and acceptance.
                    >
                    > Mary
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  • Al
                    Tom, have you studied jung s theory of the archetypes ? From my understanding of your transandence theory for transcendence is very closly similar to
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 12, 2009
                      Tom, have you studied jung's theory of the 'archetypes'? From my
                      understanding of your transandence theory for transcendence is very
                      closly similar to psychological depths explored my jung.

                      Is there any form of meditation that you do, conjuring up images of the
                      representing gods for the representing drives and instincts?

                      I must say your idea of polytheism is very interesting. I remember
                      first reading about it from Nietzsche, a remarkably robust form for the
                      trancedental.

                      How does trancendence work for you? Isn't it also a sort of drive to
                      raise the biological libido to the spiritual trancedental planes of
                      forms and ideas? and hence to bring thoose insights back down to the
                      world of the physical, as in a continual process of redevelopment?

                      Could u give me ONE example of a trancedental experience of one of the
                      drives?

                      THANKS, good conversation! - Al
                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Thanks, Tom, for confessing your appreciation of mythology. Quite
                      frankly, I'm relieved. I agree that the history of the U.S., and that of
                      the New World West has been one of great impatience. The existential
                      question is how does the individual affect the power structure which
                      makes these decisions, because it is the modern impatience of power that
                      wreaks havoc with older cultures. Power is what drives such insistence,
                      but adaptation and assimilation are existential tasks. Mary
                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" tsmith17_midsouth1@ wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Mary,
                      > >
                      > > To a large extent I agree with your statements. When I refer to
                      poytheism, I don't mean to imply that I am referring to gods in the
                      sense that they are individual beings. Rather, I see Gods representing
                      drives and values. So my reference to my being a polytheist meant that
                      rather than attempting to reduce human motivation down to one aspect,
                      whither it be sex or power;I believe views that emphasize the interplay
                      of different forces are more on the mark. Certainly, as more individuals
                      are able to examine the introjections they have taken in from society,
                      it is the best of times, and it is the worst of times. In the past, I
                      have made reference in these posts to the contrasts of organic and open
                      societies which corresponds to traditional to critical thinking. In an
                      organic society, individuals are born into certain roles in the
                      collective, and traditional thinking is the mode which the individual
                      uses to fullfill his or her roles. Whereas open socities by nature are
                      in flux, and the individual will tend to use critical thinking to
                      determine what is of value and interest to them.
                      > >
                      > > I do believe the transformation can only profitably proceed at a
                      certain pace, and I believe much of US foreign policy does not take
                      account of the harm done by too rapidly disrupting tribal customs.
                      > >
                      > > Tom
                      > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > From: Mary
                      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:23 AM
                      > > Subject: [existlist] why transcendence?
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Tom,
                      > >
                      > > I agree there is a combination of values and drives, categorized or
                      not, which comprise human activity. They are the `good stuff', life
                      itself. Yet, perspective is* the difference. I reject polytheism and
                      transcendence, because they don't serve me in any useful fashion. As
                      I've said before, I don't require god/s and transcendence in order to
                      appreciate something as grand as the universe or my in/significance in
                      it. Values and drives are human, for better or worse, and existentialism
                      is a call to revaluate that which doesn't serve us. If you decide
                      polytheism and transcendence serve you, so be it. The feeling of
                      transcendence is also the result of suffering and awareness of death.
                      The danger doesn't lie in the risk of making decisions: the danger is in
                      allowing others to recruit us against our instincts, in allowing others
                      to lead us into submission or nihilism.
                      > >
                      > > The absurd is the clash of the given world with human desire, so I
                      agree with Camus and Nietzsche that creators do not need to transcend
                      their humanity. They only need to create. Do art, music or literature
                      destroy? If anything, they create bonds and have even been credited with
                      ending apartheid, the former USSR, and who knows what else. Yet even art
                      can be subverted for propaganda. It has that in common with `longing'. I
                      am not telling anyone, including myself, not to desire or create. I'm
                      simply saying there is nothing to transcend. All that you are or
                      comprehend is the result of being human. What is beautiful about the
                      absurd perspective is that it doesn't lead to murder/suicide or
                      transcendence. The absurd lives uncomfortably between hope and
                      acceptance.
                      > >
                      > > Mary
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > >
                      >
                    • tom
                      Al, I have been meditating for many years. I went thru the Transcendental Meditation instructions and the ceremony in the mid70s. I have brief instructions for
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 12, 2009
                        Al,

                        I have been meditating for many years. I went thru the Transcendental Meditation instructions and the ceremony in the mid70s. I have brief instructions for mediating the way I do at my website www.thecoolcat.net Click under the Cool Cat, then on right bottom of the page, there is a caption saying click here for meditation tips.

                        I have read a good bit of Jung, and consider him a very interesting guy. I recall two Jung quotes I like a lot. One is that the concept of the subconcious is like the concept of God and the Devil, a word attempting to describe something that you don't understand very well. Another Jung quote was that he was glad he wasn't a Jungian, otherwise he could never change his mind. The theoretical physicist, Wolfgang Paul was a patent of Jung. In a process of enabling Pauli to open up to the less developed parts of his personality, Jung analyzed many of his dreams. Pauli developed and published a paper on Syncronicity, purporting to explain simultaneous occurences that defy reductionistic assumptions.

                        Jung was originally Freud's heir apparent, but Jung broke away and created a rival school of psychology. Much of what Freud perceived as infantile and archaic in the human psyche, Jung perceived as primitive and universal elements of the collective unconciousness, that we could benefit by integrating.

                        I certainly don't claim expertese on Jung or anything else; but I do find him of interest. Another guy I find interesting is Joseph Cambell, who was to a large extent Jungian, and wrote on the power of myth.

                        Peace,
                        Tom.
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Al
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:48 AM
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: why transcendence?




                        Tom, have you studied jung's theory of the 'archetypes'? From my
                        understanding of your transandence theory for transcendence is very
                        closly similar to psychological depths explored my jung.

                        Is there any form of meditation that you do, conjuring up images of the
                        representing gods for the representing drives and instincts?

                        I must say your idea of polytheism is very interesting. I remember
                        first reading about it from Nietzsche, a remarkably robust form for the
                        trancedental.

                        How does trancendence work for you? Isn't it also a sort of drive to
                        raise the biological libido to the spiritual trancedental planes of
                        forms and ideas? and hence to bring thoose insights back down to the
                        world of the physical, as in a continual process of redevelopment?

                        Could u give me ONE example of a trancedental experience of one of the
                        drives?

                        THANKS, good conversation! - Al
                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Thanks, Tom, for confessing your appreciation of mythology. Quite
                        frankly, I'm relieved. I agree that the history of the U.S., and that of
                        the New World West has been one of great impatience. The existential
                        question is how does the individual affect the power structure which
                        makes these decisions, because it is the modern impatience of power that
                        wreaks havoc with older cultures. Power is what drives such insistence,
                        but adaptation and assimilation are existential tasks. Mary
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" tsmith17_midsouth1@ wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Mary,
                        > >
                        > > To a large extent I agree with your statements. When I refer to
                        poytheism, I don't mean to imply that I am referring to gods in the
                        sense that they are individual beings. Rather, I see Gods representing
                        drives and values. So my reference to my being a polytheist meant that
                        rather than attempting to reduce human motivation down to one aspect,
                        whither it be sex or power;I believe views that emphasize the interplay
                        of different forces are more on the mark. Certainly, as more individuals
                        are able to examine the introjections they have taken in from society,
                        it is the best of times, and it is the worst of times. In the past, I
                        have made reference in these posts to the contrasts of organic and open
                        societies which corresponds to traditional to critical thinking. In an
                        organic society, individuals are born into certain roles in the
                        collective, and traditional thinking is the mode which the individual
                        uses to fullfill his or her roles. Whereas open socities by nature are
                        in flux, and the individual will tend to use critical thinking to
                        determine what is of value and interest to them.
                        > >
                        > > I do believe the transformation can only profitably proceed at a
                        certain pace, and I believe much of US foreign policy does not take
                        account of the harm done by too rapidly disrupting tribal customs.
                        > >
                        > > Tom
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: Mary
                        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:23 AM
                        > > Subject: [existlist] why transcendence?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Tom,
                        > >
                        > > I agree there is a combination of values and drives, categorized or
                        not, which comprise human activity. They are the `good stuff', life
                        itself. Yet, perspective is* the difference. I reject polytheism and
                        transcendence, because they don't serve me in any useful fashion. As
                        I've said before, I don't require god/s and transcendence in order to
                        appreciate something as grand as the universe or my in/significance in
                        it. Values and drives are human, for better or worse, and existentialism
                        is a call to revaluate that which doesn't serve us. If you decide
                        polytheism and transcendence serve you, so be it. The feeling of
                        transcendence is also the result of suffering and awareness of death.
                        The danger doesn't lie in the risk of making decisions: the danger is in
                        allowing others to recruit us against our instincts, in allowing others
                        to lead us into submission or nihilism.
                        > >
                        > > The absurd is the clash of the given world with human desire, so I
                        agree with Camus and Nietzsche that creators do not need to transcend
                        their humanity. They only need to create. Do art, music or literature
                        destroy? If anything, they create bonds and have even been credited with
                        ending apartheid, the former USSR, and who knows what else. Yet even art
                        can be subverted for propaganda. It has that in common with `longing'. I
                        am not telling anyone, including myself, not to desire or create. I'm
                        simply saying there is nothing to transcend. All that you are or
                        comprehend is the result of being human. What is beautiful about the
                        absurd perspective is that it doesn't lead to murder/suicide or
                        transcendence. The absurd lives uncomfortably between hope and
                        acceptance.
                        > >
                        > > Mary
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        >





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