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

Re: [existlist] And for others too long

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.