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

The truth of history (was Re: And for others too long)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.