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

Re: Extopical tutorial

Expand Messages
  • tc
    Wil, I respect your opinion of Hegel, but my questions remain in the first paragraph of Sickness unto Death , Kierkegaard severely tonguing in cheek, but
    Message 1 of 50 , Feb 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Wil,

      I respect your opinion of Hegel, but my questions remain in the first paragraph of "Sickness unto Death", Kierkegaard severely tonguing in cheek, but getting to the point - in a dialectical construct man cannot find himself, his meaning, because he cannot escape the dialectical fact that he is not yet a self. Heidegger concludes it less directly in machinations in S&Z arguing for the irretrievable loss of (personally held and given)self-time (necessary for authenticity) once fallen into the public situation - the in the end soft almost Hegelian "man is the shepherd of being", when it is more than likely that the best argument to actually obtain from S&Z is "being is the shepherd of man" and that is only carefully avoided by Heidegger, because it heads toward the abyss Hegelian thought. Kierkegaard on the other hand creates a different opposition by denying that man is yet a self at all, and therefore man's God cannot yet be a God to that selfless man, because that selfless man cannot think of a real God. It is odd, but that is my view of the matter as well.

      Modern materialism is a fad destined to pass into its own literary dotage. When we consider the greatest monistic theories of science, or literature for that matter, the size of the undertaking creates impressively large arguments, virtual encyclopedias, so when the disclaimer comes in the form of one little word "epiphenomena" it seems to be a little thing. Guess what, the epiphenomena is infinitely larger, and will always be infinitely larger than any materialist insight. Orders in all things are synthetic; often pragmatic, sometimes deluded, but generally greedy theses days.

      I do not think the life in a man is a product of merely physical things, most especially as the narrow discipline of science defines physical. No philosopher would think that. Human beings can be changed by manipulating physical things - you bet, until of course they frickin' die. Hooorah. I can see how Hegel would seem to lead away from this toward a more reflective view, but as a literary person, in an analytic (Moore,Ryle, etc. I know you know this of me, even though I am not as erudite as you) tradition of praxis concerning literary things, I can only throw in with Kierkegaard. God is not known, but neither is human self. Metaphysics is more necessary than ever. I have some ideas about forward progress for a change; ideas that avoid reactionary sources; but I can only express them in literary terms that work within my own field of familiarity; and a large part of that is ordinary, poor, struggling with education. All men are not brothers. All men are not men. The problem is: the difference cannot be detected between the two by either one. If the dust is our only brotherhood; that is all we are and all we will ever be. Hoorah again. Yeah let's discard any metaphysics, and play with human brains to physically engineer that future on a planet that is destroyed by the thing that made the wherewithal to do so possible. Good idea. Talk about a zeroing solution. Might as well go make a buck kid, you're s__t outa luck.

      I don't need to live forever. It's too late for me for that. Hell I'll die right now just to get rid of the unending sorrow I live in over Zaz, a brand new dead lover every single morning for me, a brand new broken down aching goodbye every night, the midnight nausea and grinding headache over new-old memories ripping into my sleep.

      What I want out of life is to not be stupider than I can avoid. That is why I write, and why I argue for metaphysics, and for a brother I have no frickin' idea who. Big surprise. I've never seen the ghost of my own dead brother who died 35 years ago. I guess I want to try and figure out how to become brothers, because I don't think there are any yet, and may not ever be. I do not think an ontology could avoid this brotherhood catch.

      every little thing
      tc

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > TC,
      >
      > "... I no longer consider political atheism a valid choice for an activist western man."
      >
      > I wouldn't put it that way. I would tend to go along with Zizek (following the influence of others, from Hegel to Badiou) that the Left and anyone else, including science in its reflective or speculative mood (should it decide to entertain one) should begin to think through the question of a "materialist transcendence". We tend to think of, say, Being in what I would call a "classical" or even Euclidean way. The ontological and the ontical are usually thought as if Being were something self-sufficient and adequate to itself, or as if Being is the same over its delineation or declination in time. But Being is insufficient, negative and incomplete. (That is why I think Hegel is the paramount post-humous thinker for us now.) Thus, even without a god, ontology is, as it were, internally transcendent and partial.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: tc <cribprdb@...>
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:15 pm
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Extopical tutorial
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > I actually thought we were fairly close in our assessment of Heidegger and that seems to be the case. There are many times I find your posts interesting and enlightening; but I have come to consider my own situation of education in a state of disarray, though not without certain strongly held opinions. I have begun to embrace some new political choices as well. Foremost among these; I no longer consider political atheism a valid choice for an activist western man. Protestant Christianity is so tightly bundled together with capitalism now, that I highly doubt atheism will be able to resist the temptation to fall in line, much as science already has, while presenting altogether unscientific arguments for atheism. There is no such thing, Dawkins or not, as scientific atheism, at least not from valid scientific argument. Atheism is a purely political choice. Socialism needs to keep a distance from any affiliation other than agnosticism. Just as there are capitalists in a ll walks of life there are socialists.
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
      > >
      > > TC,
      > >
      > > You wrote: "I find it insipid that we classify Heiddeger as having no value on an existentialist list, and though you are well read there is a bit of a reactionary there. ..."
      > >
      > > Response: Not me. I may have my problems with Heidegger, but I count him as one of the most significant philosophers in the 20th Century, if not the most, and I am deeply indebted to him, especially B&T, which I cite all of the time. I further do not think that Heidegger's allegiance to Nazism was due to any ill will or to some subconscious 'evil', and I am not sure that he considered himself a fascist. I do think that he was misguided by a romantic nostalgia for a mythical purity, and this apparent in B&T, but this does not prove the text as in any way 'invalid'. His post-war works are genuinely insightful as well, often beautiful as they are enigmatic. No, I do not hold the position above at all.
      > > ---
      > > "There are revealing distinctions to be made between the differing equations for authenticity in Kierkegaard's, Heidegger's, and Sartre's thought on the matter, and to do so would not be reactionary. Those distinctions pull one away from the dualist, but at the same time toward the humanist. I intended to get to that in my discussion, as I am writing about it currently in another piece."
      > >
      > > Response: Heidegger goes out of his way, and explicitly, to distance his work from any kind of humanism. See his "Letter on Humanism", for example.
      > > ---
      > > "Credibility is not the same as authenticity ..."
      > >
      > > Response: I agree. In Heidegger, it has no bearing whatsoever.
      > > ---
      > > "As far as dualism, it has been an issue since the neolithic. The Hebrew word for human being is actually Nephesh. It means literally in Eastwood's terms - "all a man has and all he's ever gonna have". The Greek term psyche, is the dualist term. Originally the Hebrews believed that Nephesh was the breath of God that enabled men to be out of the dust. When men died the Nephesh went back to God, sans man, the dust. The later Greek soteriologistic view is a different kind of dualism, and holds sway for the most part everywhere today, with the distinction being made between whether or not the psyche goes on after death or can live at all without a body. All of these ideas are matters of opinion, and fall into that area of discussion responsibly defined as agnosticism."
      > >
      > > Response: Yes, indeed. Plato was perhaps its, that is dualism's, greatest proponent.
      > > ---
      > > I am glad to see you here, under any conditions, TC. You were sorely missed all of this time. I was informed that you had returned asking about me a few months ago, by another member privately. That is what actually brought me back from my hiatus.
      > >
      > > Wil
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • hb3g@ymail.com
      Beautifully stated. The rationality of existence does not require that there be a creator of existence. The only thing I might take issue with is using the
      Message 50 of 50 , Feb 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Beautifully stated. The rationality of existence does not require that there be a creator of existence.

        The only thing I might take issue with is using the term "Copenhagen solution". It is not really a solution. It is more like an interpretation. But the fact does remain that we run into that brick wall of indeterminacy.

        How we interpret that fact was the issue. Neils Bohr concluded that the indeterminacy was an intrinsic feature of physical reality. Einstein was more Kantian about it. He viewed it as a limitation of human intellect.

        Where the truth lies is hard to say.

        Maybe they are both half right and half wrong.

        For, even if it is a characteristically "human" phenomenon to have this brick wall there, the human being is still a natural phenomenon that has come into existence through natural evolutionary processes. The human being is a form of life. And a configuration of matter and energy.

        That "indeterminacy" is, in some sense, ontologically intrinsic. Maybe, without it, there could be no freedom or knowledge.

        I don't know.

        Hb3g

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        >
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > I would still have to say that there is no actual 'product' here, and hence no producer, designer or creator. When pressed on the matter, Einstein explicitly cites Spinoza. In Spinoza (regarded always as an atheist, until certain post-War Jews have tried to make him -- and Einstein -- Jewish again), the cosmos is coeval and identical with "God", which is the one and only substance, and as such is not 'made' -- or else it would not be substance but a mode among other modes. Making God as essentially everything, makes of that concept an ontology-in-itself, one without a transcendent Mind that thinks temporally. As in Aristotle, all that this supreme concept can think is thought without thoughts (pure Nous, but in Spinoza without any Ideal reserve or 'realm'), which thereby is apparent in the rationality of truth and the eternality of physical laws.
        >
        > Using "God" in this way, as Spinoza's contemporaries knew, takes everything Godlike out of the concept, except for necessary existence. Einstein sees this as the underlying 'beauty' of physics, of the rational cohesion of a total systematicity gleanable by rational methods. Within this context, nothing can be an accident -- Einstein only begrudgingly accepted the Copenhagen solution of indeterminacy, But the cosmos itself is inexplicable. It seems just to be, but NOT designed.
        >
        > Wil
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 6:36 pm
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Wil,
        >
        > I have read those quotes also, and certainly wasn't implying that Einstein was in anyway inline with Jesuits or other theists. He did believe that the universe was the product of some great intelligence, rather than a trillion to one accident.
        >
        > Peace,
        > 'Tom
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: eupraxis@...
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:17 PM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > The rest of that first quote reads, " ... If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
        > The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the morecertain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does notlie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith,but through striving after rational knowledge.
        > Immortality? Thereare two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and isthus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conservethe memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only onetrue immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of thecosmos itself. There is no other."
        >
        > The second quote begins with this, "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist ...
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 5:07 pm
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Wil,
        >
        > I think Einstein's views were somewhat akin to those in Eastern religions.
        >
        > The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
        >
        > I also found this quote, which I also relate to. What I was attempting to convey to Mary is that I believe we live within a mystery.
        >
        > I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)
        >
        > As for as I am concerned though, nothing would suprise me. I have stated I am doubtful that existence is totally a product of random forces;however, I am not insisting that the random assumption or even the theistic ones are not possibilities,however remote.Like Knot used to say, he wasn't sure if he existed or if everything he was experiencing was an illusion. I also see that as a possibility, or maybe it is none of the above.
        >
        > Peace,
        > Tom
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: eupraxis@...
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:37 PM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > Let us remember that Einstein believed in an eternal universe without beginning and end, like Hoyle. His "god" was math, or in any case Spinoza's singular "substance" as a totality of rational order. He did not believe in a creator, nor creation. In his more candid moods, he said that his "god" talk was for the sake of us stupid Americans who had assailed relativity as immoral.
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 11:36 am
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Tom, I'm still struggling to understand how randomness can create, or conversely, how creation doesn't happen without creators. Einstein couldn't help but see what he saw, anymore than we can help how we see differently. Myths are anthropomorphic projections about the unknown, and what* do atheists assume is nonexistent?? Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
        > Fundamentalists project anthromorphic identities on the unknown; and I think atheists assume it is nonexistent.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > =
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [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.