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

Re: Confabulation

Expand Messages
  • fleeting_return
    ... Polly, I still think that I am not understanding your point of view. Take an everyday example such as eating a meal. You would have some sort of
    Message 1 of 35 , Jun 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Louise,
      >
      > On 3 June 2010 10:28, fleeting_return <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> >
      > >> > Why monstrous?  Your own presence is the only one you have.  L.
      > >> >
      > >>
      > >> Just who is having who here?
      > >>
      > >> Polly
      > >>
      > > Sorry?  I don't understand.  As I said in my earlier message, my own conviction is that the particularity of human sentience is the only end for man [the species, that is].  I thought you might value your conscious awareness, and that the objections to lost time would then be >quite reasonable, and not monstrous.  Is the void preferable to life?  Or am I confusing >myself?
      >
      > My operating theatre experience was beautiful and sufficient evidence
      > against the position that "the earth is exactly what it appears to be"
      > (quoting you from another thread yesterday :-)).
      >
      > Why would conscious awareness be valued when it is realised that the
      > continuity and persistence it suggests is entirely illusory? The
      > simple reality is that consciousness cannot contemplate it's own
      > absence, and "the mind" fills in the explanatory gaps from an
      > abundance of horror vacui. Is the illusion of a persistent subject
      > preferable to the absence of what isn't there?
      >
      > Polly
      >

      Polly,

      I still think that I am not understanding your point of view. Take an everyday example such as eating a meal. You would have some sort of conscious awareness of that. Am I right in assuming that you value eating, and the enjoyment of eating? Whether yourself as the subject who is eating has a continuity and persistence with the self who then leaves the house and drives the car does not alter the fact that you have consciously experienced tasting food. If you enjoy it, does that not indicate that you value it? Why should aesthetic contemplation, for instance, be any different?

      I am finding this discussion hard going, because I am so vague about what we are discussing. It seems that we simply have utterly different approaches to existence. For me to hold a position that resembled yours, would require me to become quite impersonal about myself.

      Louise
    • fleeting_return
      Christopher, I appreciate the suggestion. Searching in library catalogues, and on Amazon, I cannot find this particular title. Is it a short story? Louise
      Message 35 of 35 , Jun 8, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Christopher,

        I appreciate the suggestion. Searching in library catalogues, and on Amazon, I cannot find this particular title. Is it a short story?

        Louise

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, ccorey@... wrote:
        >
        > I would recommend "The Life of Ivan" by Tolstoy if you haven't read it in context to your current condition of seeming solidity...just a thought as I sometimes monitor the existential-list serve dialogue but rarely have the time to keep up general responses with all my other dialogues...hopefully Im not too far off point here
        >
        > regards,
        >
        > -c-
        >
        > Christopher Corey
        > Freedom is Existence
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "fleeting_return" <hecubatoher@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sunday, June 6, 2010 5:58:54 PM
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: More on material objects and material subjects
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Jim,
        >
        > Yes, my thoughts, being quite compressed and incipient, have given the impression that I believe character and aesthetic productions to be closely linked, and I would agree that the situation is much more complicated than that. The same may be true of my own statements in relation to "the bodily nature of existence". As my health seems to be gradually improving at present, it may be that a more various awareness - involving the nebulous and the physical together - will return, and then I might have some sense that I do definitely recognise what I am talking about.
        >
        > Louise
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com , "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Louise,
        > >
        > > You put forward some significant considerations, which I need to think through.
        > >
        > > I agree that one can get to know another's character to a reasonable degree without meeting them in the flesh.
        > >
        > > Certainly physical appearance is one thing, and character another, although I do think one can get some understanding of another's character from their facial expressions and bodily movements.
        > >
        > > Suppose you and I were to arrange to meet, and we spend a couple of hours talking before departing. Would our assessments of the other's character change? Perhaps, perhaps not.
        > >
        > > I do think those who know me best are those you see me every day.
        > >
        > > You write:
        > >
        > > "I've just been reconsidering the term, "material subject", which never seemed quite right. It is too solid a phrase, given the immateriality of the self, which I think to be a mental construct, from the standpoint of ideas an abstraction, and from the standpoint of myth a person. The self does rely on the material body for its genesis and continuance, but to materialise the subject is to thrust the bodily nature of existence too far into the foreground."
        > >
        > > I think "the bodily nature of existence" is more in the foreground for me than it is for you.
        > >
        > > My character is manifested in the words I say, write or type, and in my actions, my behaviour.
        > >
        > > Perhaps by focussing on the great writers or composers of times past, we are lead astray. It is surely not correct to assess an artist's character by his works alone. Tolstoy supposed wrote eloquently about love, but he did not treat his wife well. (So I have heard.)
        > >
        > > These are very much first thoughts on what you have written. I may change my mind on some of this.
        > >
        > > Jim
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.