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

Re: [existlist] Down the rabbit hole

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    ... This post reminds me that it is scary being alive. Although we are all fellow travellers, some travel less well with Others, especially so when their
    Message 1 of 171 , Jan 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      2010/1/1 William <v.valleywestdental@...>:
      > If something bad,scary happens down the rabbit hole you would need be coached to go underground again. Or you just might get cubed and find yourself in a drug infested horror.That is what I would experience if I tried to go back and live in the bars. That others have had sucessful LSD experiences is not suprising. Drug tolerance builds with time used and dosage increase. Smoking more now but enjoying it less was a great Madison Ave question . Leary knew that but he pushed his cult. He deserved  his Harvard defrocking and >they should have shot him on the wire.

      This post reminds me that it is scary being alive. Although we are all
      fellow travellers, some travel less well with Others, especially so
      when their paradigm on their journey is also Other. Tim Leary was no
      threat to the well being of others; the suggestion that he should have
      been murdered leaves me frightened, but more determined to examine why
      such beliefs are tolerated.


      >  Lennon was said to keep a pint of acid around. That could be considered excessive. He could have cubed NYC.
      >  Now JFK was the true drug user. Years and years on opiates for intractable pain. Good usage, needed usage but build up of untoward effects was a problem. Speed my man,speed was the only answer. Dr. Robert and his vitamin shot was a needed guest.
      >  I listened to Leary when he was popular and then watched his progression to death. He reminded me of Fidel, an old revolutionary making long,boring speaches.
      >  So guys you will not get me on the Remember Tim donation list. What is the street price of microdot? Bill
    • Jim
      Hi Polly, You write: Philosophy, if it is not reflected in what people do, is more akin to armchair trivia. Socrates philosophy was to drink hemlock when
      Message 171 of 171 , Jan 28, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Polly,

        You write:

        "Philosophy, if it is not reflected in what people do, is more akin to armchair trivia. Socrates' philosophy was to drink hemlock when push came to shove; all conceptual thinking notwithstanding."

        Yes, I completely agree with your first sentence. I certainly try to act in line with my philosophical views which combine elements of virtue ethics with existentialism.

        Socrates certainly lived his philosophy. He drank the hemlock as he argued that it was the just thing to do, rather than save his skin by escaping the death sentence passed on him by the Athenian Justice System.

        Unlike you, I have a very high opinion of Socrates who was courageous enough to speak out and act as he felt he should, even when it was dangerous for him to do so.

        In my last post to you, I wrote:

        "I am interested in the sort of questions Socrates asked. I am primarily interested in the two questions: "What am I?" and "How should I live?" I am certainly not interested in the question "What is a question?".

        You replied:

        "That's fine, of course. It does however mean you will not be able to come anywhere near Descartes or his method of doubt, or proceed beyond him. Or in other words, you are rather fond of your ideal, a priori world, and you fully intend to cling to it for dear life."

        I am not sure why you say that I have an "ideal, a priori world, and … fully intend to cling to it for dear life." My ethical views are a posteriori, as they are based on my experience of what actions and attitudes cause human beings either benefit or harm.

        I am not sure what "a priori" beliefs you are thinking of.

        You suggest that to be consistent with my own outlook, I need to put some time and effort investigating the question "What is a question?"

        However, I think if I did spend time studying this question, I would be guilty of the "armchair trivia" you rightly criticise above. Further, I have already said that I know what a question is. Why should I spend time and effort examining a phenomenon I already fully understand?

        Philosophy, in my view, is all about starting off with the things one knows, and trying to learn significant things one does not know, all the while applying one's knowledge in one's actions in the world.

        As I say above, I am not aware of clinging to unexamined attitudes and beliefs "for dear life", but if you and others think I am guilty of that so be it.

        It seems to me that you do not favour asking philosophical questions, nor trying to provide philosophical answers. Such conceptual activity only prevents the person from gaining uncluttered access to the real.

        You criticise Socrates, but surely you must criticise all philosophers (including all existentialists) for promoting the very thing you think is most harmful to human beings – conceptual thinking.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.