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

Re: [existlist] Re: Where's the boundary?

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Mary, ... Thanks for your encouragement. I would also very much like to continue on the theme of the boundary between self and other. I have a few loose
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 23, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Mary,

      On 24 February 2010 04:49, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
      > Wil, et al
      >
      > I disagree with both you and Camus on the issue of suicide, at least as presented in his Myth of Sisyphus, mostly because it violated the logic of his yet to be argued position against political murder presented in The Rebel. Namely, there are few absolutes and many reasons for limits. There are situations where suicide is not philosophically or logically debatable because suffering is reasonably rejected; situations where political murder is arguably acceptable; and situations where selective involuntary sterilization may be warranted. Few are willing to publicly promote or tolerate any advocacy for expediency, either personal or historical. I commend Polly for his vulnerability and courage, and would like to have further discussions about the boundary between self and other.
      >

      Thanks for your encouragement.

      I would also very much like to continue on the theme of the boundary
      between self and other. I have a few loose skeleton thoughts that
      desperately call out for more work and integration.

      The way I might describe it is that there is self as this living body,
      this particular conglomeration of instrumental bits and pieces, whose
      movements and actions are identified as self when they are tightly
      coupled with this volition. That contrasts with other living bodies,
      other instrumental bits and pieces, who are other because they are not
      tightly coupled with this volition. But they are coupled nonetheless,
      if only loosely, by means of the intimations of this body. Other
      bodies are within the sphere of influence of these instrumental arms,
      legs, face. And this body is likewise within the sphere of influence
      of other other bodies. Bodies loosely communicate their volitions with
      other bodies. And of course there are all those inanimate not-self
      things that are completely impervious to all volition, but to which
      volition is not impervious.

      That is my fairly poor and limited description of the continuum
      self/other/not-self, and how self differs from other self and not-self
      phenomenally. What is clear is that self, other and not-self, though
      spatially distinct and separate, can causally be extensions of each
      other.

      Where to go next, or do we start again?

      Polly
    • Mary
      Polly, I need to think about this more, but the question is directly related to your proposal. Mary
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 24, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Polly, I need to think about this more, but the question is directly related to your proposal. Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Mary,
        >
        > On 24 February 2010 04:49, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
        > > Wil, et al
        > >
        > > I disagree with both you and Camus on the issue of suicide, at least as presented in his Myth of Sisyphus, mostly because it violated the logic of his yet to be argued position against political murder presented in The Rebel. Namely, there are few absolutes and many reasons for limits. There are situations where suicide is not philosophically or logically debatable because suffering is reasonably rejected; situations where political murder is arguably acceptable; and situations where selective involuntary sterilization may be warranted. Few are willing to publicly promote or tolerate any advocacy for expediency, either personal or historical. I commend Polly for his vulnerability and courage, and would like to have further discussions about the boundary between self and other.
        > >
        >
        > Thanks for your encouragement.
        >
        > I would also very much like to continue on the theme of the boundary
        > between self and other. I have a few loose skeleton thoughts that
        > desperately call out for more work and integration.
        >
        > The way I might describe it is that there is self as this living body,
        > this particular conglomeration of instrumental bits and pieces, whose
        > movements and actions are identified as self when they are tightly
        > coupled with this volition. That contrasts with other living bodies,
        > other instrumental bits and pieces, who are other because they are not
        > tightly coupled with this volition. But they are coupled nonetheless,
        > if only loosely, by means of the intimations of this body. Other
        > bodies are within the sphere of influence of these instrumental arms,
        > legs, face. And this body is likewise within the sphere of influence
        > of other other bodies. Bodies loosely communicate their volitions with
        > other bodies. And of course there are all those inanimate not-self
        > things that are completely impervious to all volition, but to which
        > volition is not impervious.
        >
        > That is my fairly poor and limited description of the continuum
        > self/other/not-self, and how self differs from other self and not-self
        > phenomenally. What is clear is that self, other and not-self, though
        > spatially distinct and separate, can causally be extensions of each
        > other.
        >
        > Where to go next, or do we start again?
        >
        > Polly
        >
      • Mary
        Polly, perhaps we can start by asking why we exert power over others. Is it because we consider others as separate, or because we realize they aren t? We seek
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 26, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Polly, perhaps we can start by asking why we exert power over others. Is it because we consider others as separate, or because we realize they aren't? We seek to control our environment. Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:

          What is clear is that self, other and not-self, though
          spatially distinct and separate, can causally be extensions of each
          other.

          Where to go next, or do we start again?
        • Herman
          HI Mary, ... Your questions capture the extreme difficulty of the subject. I agree that we seek to control our environment, and ourselves as part of that. I
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            HI Mary,

            On 27 February 2010 07:01, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
            > Polly, perhaps we can start by asking why we exert power over others. Is it because we consider others as separate, or because we realize they aren't? We seek to control our environment.

            Your questions capture the extreme difficulty of the subject. I agree
            that we seek to control our environment, and ourselves as part of
            that. I guess that the most basic boundary that we realise is between
            the way things are, and the way we would like them to be. The Other is
            firstly the wished for that isn't there. We seek to exercise control
            over what is there, because it is unsatisfactory. But as long as we
            seek to control, we place ourselves fundamentally at odds with the way
            things are, and we are doomed to suffer being alienated from the world
            that spawns us. Craving splits the world into self/other.

            But then again, blind unity with and acceptance of fate renders one
            akin to the flotsam and jetsam that is tossed by the prevailing tide,
            which is what prompts us to imagine a different world in the first
            place, and we're back on the merry go round.

            What do you think?



            Polly



            Mary
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
            >
            > What is clear is that self, other and not-self, though
            > spatially distinct and separate, can causally be extensions of each
            > other.
            >
            > Where to go next, or do we start again?
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
            >
            > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Gordon LeVasseur Jr
            I propose that people seek to control themselves or others because so much of life is uncertain. Control holds a bit of that uncertainty at bay. Everything is
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              I propose that people seek to control themselves or others because so
              much of life is uncertain. Control holds a bit of that uncertainty at
              bay. Everything is uncertain, even this statement. Being tossed about
              on the tide is a good analogy. To go with that analogy, I don't want
              to tread water or seek solid ground. I want to develop gills and learn
              to swim. Uncertainty and meaninglessness prevail. I need to live with
              it just a I live with gravity. It is a natural fact of life here.

              On Mar 1, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Herman wrote:

              > HI Mary,
              >
              > On 27 February 2010 07:01, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
              > > Polly, perhaps we can start by asking why we exert power over
              > others. Is it because we consider others as separate, or because we
              > realize they aren't? We seek to control our environment.
              >
              > Your questions capture the extreme difficulty of the subject. I agree
              > that we seek to control our environment, and ourselves as part of
              > that. I guess that the most basic boundary that we realise is between
              > the way things are, and the way we would like them to be. The Other is
              > firstly the wished for that isn't there. We seek to exercise control
              > over what is there, because it is unsatisfactory. But as long as we
              > seek to control, we place ourselves fundamentally at odds with the way
              > things are, and we are doomed to suffer being alienated from the world
              > that spawns us. Craving splits the world into self/other.
              >
              > But then again, blind unity with and acceptance of fate renders one
              > akin to the flotsam and jetsam that is tossed by the prevailing tide,
              > which is what prompts us to imagine a different world in the first
              > place, and we're back on the merry go round.
              >
              > What do you think?
              >
              > Polly
              >
              > Mary
              > >
              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > What is clear is that self, other and not-self, though
              > > spatially distinct and separate, can causally be extensions of each
              > > other.
              > >
              > > Where to go next, or do we start again?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------
              > >
              > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
              > nothing!
              > >
              > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Herman
              Hi Gordon, Hb3g and all, ... Like you, Gordon, I m only a newbie here. And I notice that, like me, you do not use the word freedom, as Hb3g does, but
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 3, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Gordon, Hb3g and all,

                On 2 March 2010 10:15, Gordon LeVasseur Jr <gordonlevasseur@...> wrote:
                > I propose that people seek to control themselves or others because so
                > much of life is uncertain. Control holds a bit of that uncertainty at
                > bay. Everything is uncertain, even this statement. Being tossed about
                > on the tide is a good analogy. To go with that analogy, I don't want
                > to tread water or seek solid ground. I want to develop gills and learn
                > to swim. Uncertainty and meaninglessness prevail. I need to live with
                > it just a I live with gravity. It is a natural fact of life here.
                >

                Like you, Gordon, I'm only a newbie here. And I notice that, like me,
                you do not use the word freedom, as Hb3g does, but uncertainty. I
                would be interested to read from anyone how in practice uncertainty is
                different to freedom.

                Polly





                > On Mar 1, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Herman wrote:
                >
                >> HI Mary,
                >>
                >> On 27 February 2010 07:01, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                >> > Polly, perhaps we can start by asking why we exert power over
                >> others. Is it because we consider others as separate, or because we
                >> realize they aren't? We seek to control our environment.
                >>
                >> Your questions capture the extreme difficulty of the subject. I agree
                >> that we seek to control our environment, and ourselves as part of
                >> that. I guess that the most basic boundary that we realise is between
                >> the way things are, and the way we would like them to be. The Other is
                >> firstly the wished for that isn't there. We seek to exercise control
                >> over what is there, because it is unsatisfactory. But as long as we
                >> seek to control, we place ourselves fundamentally at odds with the way
                >> things are, and we are doomed to suffer being alienated from the world
                >> that spawns us. Craving splits the world into self/other.
                >>
                >> But then again, blind unity with and acceptance of fate renders one
                >> akin to the flotsam and jetsam that is tossed by the prevailing tide,
                >> which is what prompts us to imagine a different world in the first
                >> place, and we're back on the merry go round.
                >>
                >> What do you think?
                >>
                >> Polly
                >>
                >> Mary
                >> >
                >> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                >> >
                >> > What is clear is that self, other and not-self, though
                >> > spatially distinct and separate, can causally be extensions of each
                >> > other.
                >> >
                >> > Where to go next, or do we start again?
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> > ------------------------------------
                >> >
                >> > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                >> nothing!
                >> >
                >> > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                >
                > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.