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

And for others too long

Expand Messages
  • William
    I feel the scientist in that quote. I have known many who were tired of living but had no power to snuf themselves. In some cases their exits were bloody and
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I feel the scientist in that quote. I have known many who were tired of living but had no power to snuf themselves. In some cases their exits were bloody and in some really bad applications , others were hurt in the departure.
      Now Mary`s precise use of Dawkins to aid her in her explanation of Sartre furthers my contention that she is the person on this list equipped for the duty.
      I would have used Barnousky but agree that the philosopher Sartre need explain his relationship with science if his work was to be taken seriously.
      Before Einstein a thinker could remain apart from science and cleave to pure philosophy or metaphysics or mystacism. Atomic theory ended those crystal spheres but replaced them with orbits of planets and electrons that could be proved.
      I think that proof is what has taken the stage and Sartre saw the end of all but the math in the prior philosophy. So,Wil, your entrance into existentialism seems legitamate. Yet,words are not numbers
      and when you attempt prose you would do better with numbers.I suspect as a musician you have a lyrical side that you do not portray.I agree it is most difficult to meld such things.
      I think this a most auspicious start to a Sartre project.
      Now I think Dick may play a serious role should he apply himself. He has good scientific credentials and when not firing broad sides can add factual material. I do not remember him holding forth on Sartre and I hope we will be privy to his thoughts.
      I really fear anything Polly writes about Sartre. It could be a strange sausage.
      So thank you Mary for your efforts. At attention,Bill
    • tom
      Bill, You wrote Before Einstein a thinker could remain apart from science and cleave to pure philosophy or metaphysics or mystacism. Atomic theory ended those
      Message 2 of 7 , Aug 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill,

        You wrote

        Before Einstein a thinker could remain apart from science and cleave to pure philosophy or metaphysics or mystacism. Atomic theory ended those crystal spheres but replaced them with orbits of planets and electrons that could be proved.



        Aleister Crowley said that when the occult becomes the scientific, progress has been made. In the mid or late 60s, electronic devices that could read brain waves were developed, and what had always been subjective became objective. The intuitive of developed people will usually outrun what can be proved objectively;but objective measurements are increasingly something that can follow.

        An early Greek philosopher intuitively did a pretty good job picturing the atom. Many of the theoretical physicists of the 20th century developed interest in eastern philosophies. I suspect increasingly appreciating the level of these pre scientific people's intuitions. Mary's Bohm was into Krisnamurti, and Tesla began to get into Sri Aurobindo.Ron Pauli had his dreams analyzed by Jung, and wrote a scientific treatsie on syncronicity. A prime example of that was you and wife running over a turtle at the exact time a biker got hit and killed a year or 2 ago.

        I believe Einstein and Quantum physics reveals a mysterious interconnected universe, in many ways akin to eastern and mystical views.

        Peace,
        Tom

        ----- Original Message -----





        From: William
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 6:12 PM
        Subject: [existlist] And for others too long



        I feel the scientist in that quote. I have known many who were tired of living but had no power to snuf themselves. In some cases their exits were bloody and in some really bad applications , others were hurt in the departure.
        Now Mary`s precise use of Dawkins to aid her in her explanation of Sartre furthers my contention that she is the person on this list equipped for the duty.
        I would have used Barnousky but agree that the philosopher Sartre need explain his relationship with science if his work was to be taken seriously.
        Before Einstein a thinker could remain apart from science and cleave to pure philosophy or metaphysics or mystacism. Atomic theory ended those crystal spheres but replaced them with orbits of planets and electrons that could be proved.
        I think that proof is what has taken the stage and Sartre saw the end of all but the math in the prior philosophy. So,Wil, your entrance into existentialism seems legitamate. Yet,words are not numbers
        and when you attempt prose you would do better with numbers.I suspect as a musician you have a lyrical side that you do not portray.I agree it is most difficult to meld such things.
        I think this a most auspicious start to a Sartre project.
        Now I think Dick may play a serious role should he apply himself. He has good scientific credentials and when not firing broad sides can add factual material. I do not remember him holding forth on Sartre and I hope we will be privy to his thoughts.
        I really fear anything Polly writes about Sartre. It could be a strange sausage.
        So thank you Mary for your efforts. At attention,Bill





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Herman
        Hi Bill, ... Well might you fear anything I might say about Sartre. If Sartre is correctly translated as insisting that the for-itself is radically free, he is
        Message 3 of 7 , Aug 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Bill,

          On 2 August 2010 09:12, William <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
          >  I really fear anything Polly writes about Sartre. It could be a strange sausage.

          Well might you fear anything I might say about Sartre. If Sartre is
          correctly translated as insisting that the for-itself is radically
          free, he is quite wrong. The for-itself is radically uncertain. That,
          in no way, amounts to freedom.

          Polly
        • William
          ... You are truly polymorphous. I think the sausage factory has already begun. I am sure you will succede in rewriting Sartre or perhaps you will retranslate
          Message 4 of 7 , Aug 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Bill,
            >
            > On 2 August 2010 09:12, William <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
            > >  I really fear anything Polly writes about Sartre. It could be a strange sausage.
            >
            > Well might you fear anything I might say about Sartre. If Sartre is
            > correctly translated as insisting that the for-itself is radically
            > free, he is quite wrong. The for-itself is radically uncertain. That,
            > in no way, amounts to freedom.
            >
            > Polly
            >
            You are truly polymorphous. I think the sausage factory has already begun. I am sure you will succede in rewriting Sartre or perhaps you will retranslate him. Bull, you will carp and snipe with no direction but attention getting. You have no coherance and as someone else mentioned you are the master of the nonsequetor. It seems you have great difficulty keeping a train of thought and Sartre is certainly not the read for you.
            May I suggest"Butterflys are free" or perhaps "The unbearable lightness of being", I do not know if they are available in French. Bill
          • Mary
            Bill, Sartre s academic verbosity is dazzling feast of logic, only some of which I will be able to digest. For instance, in the introduction there is a section
            Message 5 of 7 , Aug 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Bill, Sartre's academic verbosity is dazzling feast of logic, only some of which I will be able to digest. For instance, in the introduction there is a section on his concept of totalization which is the History of man using the dialectic. He speaks of the relationship between the Parts and the Whole, which is extremely similar to David Bohm's use of the hologram whose description is simpler. I really need a Critique For Dummies but will soldier on none the less. I wonder if Bohm read Sartre. Pretty difficult to imagine him not, but on the other hand he would hardly tell the world after his debacle with the HUAC.
            • William
              ... Heidegger is hard to read but if you slog through it is rewarded. Sartre is harder and sometimes even after several readings I still understood little.
              Message 6 of 7 , Aug 3, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                >
                > Bill, Sartre's academic verbosity is dazzling feast of logic, only some of which I will be able to digest. For instance, in the introduction there is a section on his concept of totalization which is the History of man using the dialectic. He speaks of the relationship between the Parts and the Whole, which is extremely similar to David Bohm's use of the hologram whose description is simpler. I really need a Critique For Dummies but will soldier on none the less. I wonder if Bohm read Sartre. Pretty difficult to imagine him not, but on the other hand he would hardly tell the world after his debacle with the HUAC.
                >
                Heidegger is hard to read but if you slog through it is rewarded. Sartre is harder and sometimes even after several readings I still understood little. Kirkegaar was just a pile of words.
                I know Sartre coined words,in French, their definition in English could be highly controversial.
                I find it common when attempting Sartre, to end up saying"What the hell was that about"?I often think as if I had speed read some piece and have a scanned handling of the writing. It is also like approximating an equation as when following it with a slide rule. Those are survival methods and as to their reliability , that too would be a guess.
                So Mary,I appreciate the difficulty of what you are doing. I do remember my philosophy PHD telling me to use caution because Sartre could drive you mad. Have a wonderful brain storm. Bill
              • Mary
                Polly, Freedom is necessary and apodictic, because once it enters history as a concept lived and died for, it evolves. Freedom s future is already present in
                Message 7 of 7 , Aug 5, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Polly,

                  Freedom is necessary and apodictic, because once it enters history as a concept lived and died for, it evolves. Freedom's future is already present in its past but preliminary probing, not as some imagined potential, but similar to human presence in primordial ooze. As in Sartre's demonstration in drawing a line beginning to intersect a circle, even a child with basic intuitive (and dialectical) reason, knows the line will pass through the circle into infinity well before the geometrical/mathematical proof is laid. (Critique, Introduction, Section II, Primary and Secondary Intelligence, footnote 26).

                  Actual freedom from interdependence for an alienated or isolated person is simply death, but actual freedom for the group is life itself. The totalizing temporality we experience is marked by a series of trade-offs, as Irvin reminds me. Intelligent and serious people will disagree about these trade-offs. Bill is not alone in wanting to influence the group. To say freedom isn't certain is to say a line which enters a circle can never exit. I see a kinship between Sartre and Bohm, probably based on their common background of Marxism, the former with his novelty and totalization; and the latter with his creative dialogue and holomovement. I'm reading the Critique for its purpose, to show the Truth of History, which Bohm might call the Meaning of Man.

                  I slog on . . . Mary

                  Mary

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Bill,
                  >
                  > On 2 August 2010 09:12, William <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                  > >  I really fear anything Polly writes about Sartre. It could be a strange sausage.
                  >
                  > Well might you fear anything I might say about Sartre. If Sartre is
                  > correctly translated as insisting that the for-itself is radically
                  > free, he is quite wrong. The for-itself is radically uncertain. That,
                  > in no way, amounts to freedom.
                  >
                  > Polly
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.