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

Re: Disbelief belies belief

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Tom, by disbelief I do not strictly mean atheism. I m addressing a greater skepticism toward objective and subjective realities. Mary
    Message 1 of 27 , Oct 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom, by disbelief I do not strictly mean atheism. I'm addressing a greater skepticism toward objective and subjective realities. Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > As you say unbelief is a form of belief.
      >
      > "Werner Heisenberg [in Physics and Beyond, 1971] recollects a friendly conversation among young participants at the 1927 Solvay Conference, about Einstein and Planck's views on religion. Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg, and Dirac took part in it. Dirac's contribution was a poignant and clear criticism of the political manipulation of religion, that was much appreciated for its lucidity by Bohr, when Heisenberg reported it to him later. Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest - and as scientists honesty is our precise duty - we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination. [...] I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another. [...]" Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks. But when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet'". Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac
      >
      > Peace
      > Tom
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Mary
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:56 PM
      > Subject: [existlist] Disbelief belies belief
      >
      >
      >
      > Bill believed in Remington. I believed in marriage. We will be skeptical yet continue to believe in the possibility and probability of the other's validity. Some guns are good and necessary, just like some marriages are good. But disbelief belies, much like the certitude that nothing is certain. It seems our thought-feelings vary in intensity but our emotional attachment to some thought qualifies as faith, construed somehow as a more odious form of belief. Life long habits and reflexes of holding and discarding thoughts suggest it's difficult to easily exchange one thought-feeling for another, but it's usually this very ability which helps us survive. What if a victim of abuse suddently believed they didn't deserve what they previously believed they deserved. We rely/believe/trust according to our needs, but what determines our needs? Society does, with its ideas, opinions and beliefs. I just returned from the doctor where I was poked, prodded, measured, and immunized. If I didn't believe in such efficacies, or that I was satisfying my family's comfort level, why would I put myself through these humiliating health hoops? I vote in belief, eat in belief, and will die with some kind of belief about my life, with nothing to measure anything by except beliefs. I can believe someone else's experiences and explanation because I believe in mine. Or, I don't believe in anyone's experiences, because I don't believe in mine. Is belief everything, or is it nothing? How does one not believe, because as I speculate, even unbelief is a form of belief. Mary
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • tom
      Agreed, but Pauli s point is that when atheism becomes as dogmatic as theism, u have unbiliefs that are beliefs Tom ... From: Mary To:
      Message 2 of 27 , Oct 29, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Agreed, but Pauli's point is that when atheism becomes as dogmatic as theism, u have unbiliefs that are beliefs

        Tom
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Mary
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 7:55 PM
        Subject: [existlist] Re: Disbelief belies belief



        Tom, by disbelief I do not strictly mean atheism. I'm addressing a greater skepticism toward objective and subjective realities. Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > As you say unbelief is a form of belief.
        >
        > "Werner Heisenberg [in Physics and Beyond, 1971] recollects a friendly conversation among young participants at the 1927 Solvay Conference, about Einstein and Planck's views on religion. Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg, and Dirac took part in it. Dirac's contribution was a poignant and clear criticism of the political manipulation of religion, that was much appreciated for its lucidity by Bohr, when Heisenberg reported it to him later. Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest - and as scientists honesty is our precise duty - we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination. [...] I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another. [...]" Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks. But when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet'". Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac
        >
        > Peace
        > Tom
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Mary
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:56 PM
        > Subject: [existlist] Disbelief belies belief
        >
        >
        >
        > Bill believed in Remington. I believed in marriage. We will be skeptical yet continue to believe in the possibility and probability of the other's validity. Some guns are good and necessary, just like some marriages are good. But disbelief belies, much like the certitude that nothing is certain. It seems our thought-feelings vary in intensity but our emotional attachment to some thought qualifies as faith, construed somehow as a more odious form of belief. Life long habits and reflexes of holding and discarding thoughts suggest it's difficult to easily exchange one thought-feeling for another, but it's usually this very ability which helps us survive. What if a victim of abuse suddently believed they didn't deserve what they previously believed they deserved. We rely/believe/trust according to our needs, but what determines our needs? Society does, with its ideas, opinions and beliefs. I just returned from the doctor where I was poked, prodded, measured, and immunized. If I didn't believe in such efficacies, or that I was satisfying my family's comfort level, why would I put myself through these humiliating health hoops? I vote in belief, eat in belief, and will die with some kind of belief about my life, with nothing to measure anything by except beliefs. I can believe someone else's experiences and explanation because I believe in mine. Or, I don't believe in anyone's experiences, because I don't believe in mine. Is belief everything, or is it nothing? How does one not believe, because as I speculate, even unbelief is a form of belief. Mary
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mary
        Tom, I m more interested in why some people are dogmatic and how others change opinions more easily. And by easily, I mean over years! Regarding atheism, my
        Message 3 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Tom,

          I'm more interested in why some people are dogmatic and how others change opinions more easily. And by easily, I mean over years! Regarding atheism, my former religious belief must have belied my disbelief. Otherwise, how could I have changed my mind? The fact that we are emotionally pleased and displeased by thoughts and ideas is odd. Bohm, following child development theory, suggested it starts in infancy. That means to me that dogmatism might be infantile. Zizek said that true fundamentalism isn't based in envy or resentment but has the confidence of faith. It doesn't feel threatened or need to terrorize. How many are confident enough of beliefs NOT to argue about them? If argument is simply a human activity without an objective basis, then we are taking ourselves far too seriously. If there is objective reality, then I suppose there is good reason to discover it, and arguing serves that purpose. For me, whether gods exist isn't as important as how I live. I recognize how I live has been influenced by religious ideas, but I've tweaked or discarded those ideas which harmed me and others.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
          >
          > Agreed, but Pauli's point is that when atheism becomes as dogmatic as theism, u have unbiliefs that are beliefs
          >
          > Tom
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Mary
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 7:55 PM
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: Disbelief belies belief
          >
          >
          >
          > Tom, by disbelief I do not strictly mean atheism. I'm addressing a greater skepticism toward objective and subjective realities. Mary
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Mary
          > >
          > > As you say unbelief is a form of belief.
          > >
          > > "Werner Heisenberg [in Physics and Beyond, 1971] recollects a friendly conversation among young participants at the 1927 Solvay Conference, about Einstein and Planck's views on religion. Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg, and Dirac took part in it. Dirac's contribution was a poignant and clear criticism of the political manipulation of religion, that was much appreciated for its lucidity by Bohr, when Heisenberg reported it to him later. Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest - and as scientists honesty is our precise duty - we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination. [...] I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another. [...]" Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks. But when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet'". Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac
          > >
          > > Peace
          > > Tom
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: Mary
          > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:56 PM
          > > Subject: [existlist] Disbelief belies belief
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Bill believed in Remington. I believed in marriage. We will be skeptical yet continue to believe in the possibility and probability of the other's validity. Some guns are good and necessary, just like some marriages are good. But disbelief belies, much like the certitude that nothing is certain. It seems our thought-feelings vary in intensity but our emotional attachment to some thought qualifies as faith, construed somehow as a more odious form of belief. Life long habits and reflexes of holding and discarding thoughts suggest it's difficult to easily exchange one thought-feeling for another, but it's usually this very ability which helps us survive. What if a victim of abuse suddently believed they didn't deserve what they previously believed they deserved. We rely/believe/trust according to our needs, but what determines our needs? Society does, with its ideas, opinions and beliefs. I just returned from the doctor where I was poked, prodded, measured, and immunized. If I didn't believe in such efficacies, or that I was satisfying my family's comfort level, why would I put myself through these humiliating health hoops? I vote in belief, eat in belief, and will die with some kind of belief about my life, with nothing to measure anything by except beliefs. I can believe someone else's experiences and explanation because I believe in mine. Or, I don't believe in anyone's experiences, because I don't believe in mine. Is belief everything, or is it nothing? How does one not believe, because as I speculate, even unbelief is a form of belief. Mary
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • tom
          Mary I have heard the theory that people inclined toward one type of dogmatism if they reject it are likely to become converts to other dogmatisms. I have
          Message 4 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Mary

            I have heard the theory that people inclined toward one type of dogmatism if they reject it are likely to become converts to other dogmatisms. I have heard of dogmatic Catholics, who then become dogmatic communists etc. I heard that among US prisoners of war captured by Koreans in the Korean War , ones that were originally strong believers in the total rightness of America were easier to transform into a believing communist, than those who were always a bit skeptical about all authority.

            One of the reasons I believe, certain beliefs are liked is that they are associated by the believers with hope; and hope is the quality entwined with just about everything people do.In the early 30s, FDR inspired a depression ridden US with hope, and across the sea Hitler did the same with Germans. Obama ran on hope and change.

            Peace
            Tom
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Mary
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:22 AM
            Subject: [existlist] Belief belies disbelief



            Tom,

            I'm more interested in why some people are dogmatic and how others change opinions more easily. And by easily, I mean over years! Regarding atheism, my former religious belief must have belied my disbelief. Otherwise, how could I have changed my mind? The fact that we are emotionally pleased and displeased by thoughts and ideas is odd. Bohm, following child development theory, suggested it starts in infancy. That means to me that dogmatism might be infantile. Zizek said that true fundamentalism isn't based in envy or resentment but has the confidence of faith. It doesn't feel threatened or need to terrorize. How many are confident enough of beliefs NOT to argue about them? If argument is simply a human activity without an objective basis, then we are taking ourselves far too seriously. If there is objective reality, then I suppose there is good reason to discover it, and arguing serves that purpose. For me, whether gods exist isn't as important as how I live. I recognize how I live has been influenced by religious ideas, but I've tweaked or discarded those ideas which harmed me and others.

            Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
            >
            > Agreed, but Pauli's point is that when atheism becomes as dogmatic as theism, u have unbiliefs that are beliefs
            >
            > Tom
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Mary
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 7:55 PM
            > Subject: [existlist] Re: Disbelief belies belief
            >
            >
            >
            > Tom, by disbelief I do not strictly mean atheism. I'm addressing a greater skepticism toward objective and subjective realities. Mary
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Mary
            > >
            > > As you say unbelief is a form of belief.
            > >
            > > "Werner Heisenberg [in Physics and Beyond, 1971] recollects a friendly conversation among young participants at the 1927 Solvay Conference, about Einstein and Planck's views on religion. Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg, and Dirac took part in it. Dirac's contribution was a poignant and clear criticism of the political manipulation of religion, that was much appreciated for its lucidity by Bohr, when Heisenberg reported it to him later. Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest - and as scientists honesty is our precise duty - we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination. [...] I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another. [...]" Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks. But when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet'". Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac
            > >
            > > Peace
            > > Tom
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: Mary
            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:56 PM
            > > Subject: [existlist] Disbelief belies belief
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Bill believed in Remington. I believed in marriage. We will be skeptical yet continue to believe in the possibility and probability of the other's validity. Some guns are good and necessary, just like some marriages are good. But disbelief belies, much like the certitude that nothing is certain. It seems our thought-feelings vary in intensity but our emotional attachment to some thought qualifies as faith, construed somehow as a more odious form of belief. Life long habits and reflexes of holding and discarding thoughts suggest it's difficult to easily exchange one thought-feeling for another, but it's usually this very ability which helps us survive. What if a victim of abuse suddently believed they didn't deserve what they previously believed they deserved. We rely/believe/trust according to our needs, but what determines our needs? Society does, with its ideas, opinions and beliefs. I just returned from the doctor where I was poked, prodded, measured, and immunized. If I didn't believe in such efficacies, or that I was satisfying my family's comfort level, why would I put myself through these humiliating health hoops? I vote in belief, eat in belief, and will die with some kind of belief about my life, with nothing to measure anything by except beliefs. I can believe someone else's experiences and explanation because I believe in mine. Or, I don't believe in anyone's experiences, because I don't believe in mine. Is belief everything, or is it nothing? How does one not believe, because as I speculate, even unbelief is a form of belief. Mary
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • tom
            Some psychologists have determined what they call an authoritarian character structure which they maintain predetermined people toward tendencies associated
            Message 5 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Some psychologists have determined what they call an "authoritarian character structure" which they maintain predetermined people toward tendencies associated with authoritarianism. Character structures are cultimated in our early years as we attempt to adapt to the world and people around us. Much body work like Reichian massage and Rolfing attempts to release these subliminal structures to increase the physical and mental mobility of the person.John Lennon wrote "Working Class Hero" as he and Yoko went through Primal Scream therapy. The working class hero represented the psychological and physical patterns into which the mass male evolved. Abraham Lincoln said God must love the common man, because he made so many. The mass man or working class hero might be defined as the patterns that in a given space/time are most conductive to survival and reproduction if you take the position of evolutionary psychology. I believe that the history of frequent warfare that is history has increased authoritarian pattererns in humanity. There is much to be said for authoritarianism in running a successful military. Everybody seeking their own truth may be very beautiful in an artists' colony, but to the extent that orders are carried out automatically the more likely a military will be to win rather than lose. Right wing pundits these days are able to associate freedom with US military powers; but Tom Jefferson refered to certain possibilities of national banks issuing currency as big a threat to the liberty of the citizens as a standing army.Of course, Jefferson hoped to see an America composed of many independently owned farms, whereas as America shifted from bering agrarian to being a huge industrial power; the growth of huge corporations and later huge government created an economic reality where most people's survival depended more on conforming to organization dictates than the self reliance and independence of the small farmer or business person.

              Peace
              Tom
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Mary
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:22 AM
              Subject: [existlist] Belief belies disbelief



              Tom,

              I'm more interested in why some people are dogmatic and how others change opinions more easily. And by easily, I mean over years! Regarding atheism, my former religious belief must have belied my disbelief. Otherwise, how could I have changed my mind? The fact that we are emotionally pleased and displeased by thoughts and ideas is odd. Bohm, following child development theory, suggested it starts in infancy. That means to me that dogmatism might be infantile. Zizek said that true fundamentalism isn't based in envy or resentment but has the confidence of faith. It doesn't feel threatened or need to terrorize. How many are confident enough of beliefs NOT to argue about them? If argument is simply a human activity without an objective basis, then we are taking ourselves far too seriously. If there is objective reality, then I suppose there is good reason to discover it, and arguing serves that purpose. For me, whether gods exist isn't as important as how I live. I recognize how I live has been influenced by religious ideas, but I've tweaked or discarded those ideas which harmed me and others.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
              >
              > Agreed, but Pauli's point is that when atheism becomes as dogmatic as theism, u have unbiliefs that are beliefs
              >
              > Tom
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Mary
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 7:55 PM
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Disbelief belies belief
              >
              >
              >
              > Tom, by disbelief I do not strictly mean atheism. I'm addressing a greater skepticism toward objective and subjective realities. Mary
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Mary
              > >
              > > As you say unbelief is a form of belief.
              > >
              > > "Werner Heisenberg [in Physics and Beyond, 1971] recollects a friendly conversation among young participants at the 1927 Solvay Conference, about Einstein and Planck's views on religion. Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg, and Dirac took part in it. Dirac's contribution was a poignant and clear criticism of the political manipulation of religion, that was much appreciated for its lucidity by Bohr, when Heisenberg reported it to him later. Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest - and as scientists honesty is our precise duty - we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination. [...] I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another. [...]" Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks. But when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet'". Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac
              > >
              > > Peace
              > > Tom
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: Mary
              > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:56 PM
              > > Subject: [existlist] Disbelief belies belief
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Bill believed in Remington. I believed in marriage. We will be skeptical yet continue to believe in the possibility and probability of the other's validity. Some guns are good and necessary, just like some marriages are good. But disbelief belies, much like the certitude that nothing is certain. It seems our thought-feelings vary in intensity but our emotional attachment to some thought qualifies as faith, construed somehow as a more odious form of belief. Life long habits and reflexes of holding and discarding thoughts suggest it's difficult to easily exchange one thought-feeling for another, but it's usually this very ability which helps us survive. What if a victim of abuse suddently believed they didn't deserve what they previously believed they deserved. We rely/believe/trust according to our needs, but what determines our needs? Society does, with its ideas, opinions and beliefs. I just returned from the doctor where I was poked, prodded, measured, and immunized. If I didn't believe in such efficacies, or that I was satisfying my family's comfort level, why would I put myself through these humiliating health hoops? I vote in belief, eat in belief, and will die with some kind of belief about my life, with nothing to measure anything by except beliefs. I can believe someone else's experiences and explanation because I believe in mine. Or, I don't believe in anyone's experiences, because I don't believe in mine. Is belief everything, or is it nothing? How does one not believe, because as I speculate, even unbelief is a form of belief. Mary
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • irvhal
              Word s been about in the media that a gene s been discovered for political liberalism. I ve not seen this study, but do find pursuasive the studies of
              Message 6 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Word's been about in the media that a gene's been discovered for political liberalism. I've not seen this study, but do find pursuasive the studies of identical twins separated at birth and brought together decades later, which are summarized in Segal's book "Entwined Lives." These studies are invaluable in that genotypes, in distinction from environment, are identical, thus allowing evaluations of relative variables. Apart from similar metabolisms, body clocks and so forth, there are remarkable similarities in IQ, sexual orientation, marital stability, temperament and even quirks. One pair of twins I found especially striking both felt compelled to flush the toilet both before and after use, and both took delight in sneezing loudly in crowded elevators. I should add that unlike sensational claims for any singular gene, these studies cautioned that hereditary influences are likely polygenetic. From an existential view, I'd conclude that while our dispositions and capacities are wholly or partially innate, our freedom reposes in the intellect, in the means to take stock of the context we're in and, as Camus might say, to chuck it all.

                Irvin

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
                >
                > Some psychologists have determined what they call an "authoritarian character structure" which they maintain predetermined people toward tendencies associated with authoritarianism. Character structures are cultimated in our early years as we attempt to adapt to the world and people around us. Much body work like Reichian massage and Rolfing attempts to release these subliminal structures to increase the physical and mental mobility of the person.John Lennon wrote "Working Class Hero" as he and Yoko went through Primal Scream therapy. The working class hero represented the psychological and physical patterns into which the mass male evolved. Abraham Lincoln said God must love the common man, because he made so many. The mass man or working class hero might be defined as the patterns that in a given space/time are most conductive to survival and reproduction if you take the position of evolutionary psychology. I believe that the history of frequent warfare that is history has increased authoritarian pattererns in humanity. There is much to be said for authoritarianism in running a successful military. Everybody seeking their own truth may be very beautiful in an artists' colony, but to the extent that orders are carried out automatically the more likely a military will be to win rather than lose. Right wing pundits these days are able to associate freedom with US military powers; but Tom Jefferson refered to certain possibilities of national banks issuing currency as big a threat to the liberty of the citizens as a standing army.Of course, Jefferson hoped to see an America composed of many independently owned farms, whereas as America shifted from bering agrarian to being a huge industrial power; the growth of huge corporations and later huge government created an economic reality where most people's survival depended more on conforming to organization dictates than the self reliance and independence of the small farmer or business person.
                >
                > Peace
                > Tom
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Mary
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:22 AM
                > Subject: [existlist] Belief belies disbelief
                >
                >
                >
                > Tom,
                >
                > I'm more interested in why some people are dogmatic and how others change opinions more easily. And by easily, I mean over years! Regarding atheism, my former religious belief must have belied my disbelief. Otherwise, how could I have changed my mind? The fact that we are emotionally pleased and displeased by thoughts and ideas is odd. Bohm, following child development theory, suggested it starts in infancy. That means to me that dogmatism might be infantile. Zizek said that true fundamentalism isn't based in envy or resentment but has the confidence of faith. It doesn't feel threatened or need to terrorize. How many are confident enough of beliefs NOT to argue about them? If argument is simply a human activity without an objective basis, then we are taking ourselves far too seriously. If there is objective reality, then I suppose there is good reason to discover it, and arguing serves that purpose. For me, whether gods exist isn't as important as how I live. I recognize how I live has been influenced by religious ideas, but I've tweaked or discarded those ideas which harmed me and others.
                >
                > Mary
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Agreed, but Pauli's point is that when atheism becomes as dogmatic as theism, u have unbiliefs that are beliefs
                > >
                > > Tom
                > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > From: Mary
                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 7:55 PM
                > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Disbelief belies belief
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Tom, by disbelief I do not strictly mean atheism. I'm addressing a greater skepticism toward objective and subjective realities. Mary
                > >
                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Mary
                > > >
                > > > As you say unbelief is a form of belief.
                > > >
                > > > "Werner Heisenberg [in Physics and Beyond, 1971] recollects a friendly conversation among young participants at the 1927 Solvay Conference, about Einstein and Planck's views on religion. Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg, and Dirac took part in it. Dirac's contribution was a poignant and clear criticism of the political manipulation of religion, that was much appreciated for its lucidity by Bohr, when Heisenberg reported it to him later. Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest - and as scientists honesty is our precise duty - we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination. [...] I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another. [...]" Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks. But when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet'". Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac
                > > >
                > > > Peace
                > > > Tom
                > > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > > From: Mary
                > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:56 PM
                > > > Subject: [existlist] Disbelief belies belief
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Bill believed in Remington. I believed in marriage. We will be skeptical yet continue to believe in the possibility and probability of the other's validity. Some guns are good and necessary, just like some marriages are good. But disbelief belies, much like the certitude that nothing is certain. It seems our thought-feelings vary in intensity but our emotional attachment to some thought qualifies as faith, construed somehow as a more odious form of belief. Life long habits and reflexes of holding and discarding thoughts suggest it's difficult to easily exchange one thought-feeling for another, but it's usually this very ability which helps us survive. What if a victim of abuse suddently believed they didn't deserve what they previously believed they deserved. We rely/believe/trust according to our needs, but what determines our needs? Society does, with its ideas, opinions and beliefs. I just returned from the doctor where I was poked, prodded, measured, and immunized. If I didn't believe in such efficacies, or that I was satisfying my family's comfort level, why would I put myself through these humiliating health hoops? I vote in belief, eat in belief, and will die with some kind of belief about my life, with nothing to measure anything by except beliefs. I can believe someone else's experiences and explanation because I believe in mine. Or, I don't believe in anyone's experiences, because I don't believe in mine. Is belief everything, or is it nothing? How does one not believe, because as I speculate, even unbelief is a form of belief. Mary
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Mary
                But don t these dispositions and capacities limit the ability to freely use our intellect? How is intellect separate from them? Could you expand on your last
                Message 7 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  But don't these dispositions and capacities limit the ability to freely use our intellect? How is intellect separate from them? Could you expand on your last clause? Thank you, Mary

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:

                  From an existential view, I'd conclude that while our dispositions and capacities are wholly or
                  partially innate, our freedom reposes in the intellect, in the means to take stock of the context we're in and, as Camus might say, to chuck it all.
                • irvhal
                  May we not say that dispositions, say an allergy to beets, or even an acquired habit, like smoking, have minds of their own -- run on automatic pilot so to
                  Message 8 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    May we not say that dispositions, say an allergy to beets, or even an acquired habit, like smoking, have "minds" of their own -- run on automatic pilot so to speak? Isn't the intellect, which entails concept or discrimination, projection, reflection and alternatives, something more?

                    Irvin

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > But don't these dispositions and capacities limit the ability to freely use our intellect? How is intellect separate from them? Could you expand on your last clause? Thank you, Mary
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
                    >
                    > From an existential view, I'd conclude that while our dispositions and capacities are wholly or
                    > partially innate, our freedom reposes in the intellect, in the means to take stock of the context we're in and, as Camus might say, to chuck it all.
                    >
                  • tom
                    Mary I guess in some ways its a bit like the idea in Catch 22. If you had what you needed to go from a to b, you wouldn t need to go to b.. However, Irvhal d
                    Message 9 of 27 , Oct 30, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mary

                      I guess in some ways its a bit like the idea in Catch 22. If you had what you needed to go from a to b, you wouldn't need to go to b.. However, Irvhal'd point is that when and if the intellect developes to the point that it can stand above and to a certain extent integrate warring elements in our nature, a third force has arrived. Freud saw the ego as playing this function with the id and superego, and in the Bagata Gita Arjuna is being pulled apart by the two sides getting ready to fight, and his encounter with Krisna could be seen as the emergence of the intellect. The trinity in Christianity may also reflect this with the Holy Spirit integrating Father[superego] and Son [id]. Freud maintained that most of the activities of both the id and superego were unconcious to us; and there may be all kinds of sexual and aggresive impulses that go on subconciously, as well as critical judgements of them and verdicts of of psychsomatic illnesses and accidents as the senstences for these transgressions that also are unconcious. .

                      Peace
                      Tom
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Mary
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 2:44 PM
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: Belief belies disbelief



                      But don't these dispositions and capacities limit the ability to freely use our intellect? How is intellect separate from them? Could you expand on your last clause? Thank you, Mary

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:

                      From an existential view, I'd conclude that while our dispositions and capacities are wholly or
                      partially innate, our freedom reposes in the intellect, in the means to take stock of the context we're in and, as Camus might say, to chuck it all.





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Mary
                      Your question revives a dormant thread active this past March regarding Thought As A System by David Bohm. Our intellect is far more reflexive than we wish
                      Message 10 of 27 , Oct 31, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Your question revives a dormant thread active this past March regarding "Thought As A System" by David Bohm. Our intellect is far more reflexive than we wish to believe, but the activities you mention seem to entail something more. Controlled, directed, and creative thinking are rarer than you suppose. Most thinking is on auto-pilot with its rudder being pleasure. The intellectual activities you mention are crucial in certain professions which depend upon them but necessarily determined and disciplined. Private, casual thinkers seemingly less so, but nonetheless imprinted by emotional reflexes. The progress we require in many areas of public and private realms requires disciplined AND creative thinking, not the continual cycle of worn out ineffectual, habitual, reflexive thought. I welcome any examination of thought. Mary

                        P.S. What about the Camus comment?



                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > May we not say that dispositions, say an allergy to beets, or even an acquired habit, like smoking, have "minds" of their own -- run on automatic pilot so to speak? Isn't the intellect, which entails concept or discrimination, projection, reflection and alternatives, something more?
                        >
                        > Irvin
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > But don't these dispositions and capacities limit the ability to freely use our intellect? How is intellect separate from them? Could you expand on your last clause? Thank you, Mary
                        > >
                        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > From an existential view, I'd conclude that while our dispositions and capacities are wholly or
                        > > partially innate, our freedom reposes in the intellect, in the means to take stock of the context we're in and, as Camus might say, to chuck it all.
                        > >
                        >
                      • irvhal
                        Camus fundamental question from The Myth of Sisyphus suggests that while options are finite, we re not necessarily hostage. Irvin
                        Message 11 of 27 , Oct 31, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Camus' fundamental question from "The Myth of Sisyphus" suggests that while options are finite, we're not necessarily hostage.

                          Irvin

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Your question revives a dormant thread active this past March regarding "Thought As A System" by David Bohm. Our intellect is far more reflexive than we wish to believe, but the activities you mention seem to entail something more. Controlled, directed, and creative thinking are rarer than you suppose. Most thinking is on auto-pilot with its rudder being pleasure. The intellectual activities you mention are crucial in certain professions which depend upon them but necessarily determined and disciplined. Private, casual thinkers seemingly less so, but nonetheless imprinted by emotional reflexes. The progress we require in many areas of public and private realms requires disciplined AND creative thinking, not the continual cycle of worn out ineffectual, habitual, reflexive thought. I welcome any examination of thought. Mary
                          >
                          > P.S. What about the Camus comment?
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > May we not say that dispositions, say an allergy to beets, or even an acquired habit, like smoking, have "minds" of their own -- run on automatic pilot so to speak? Isn't the intellect, which entails concept or discrimination, projection, reflection and alternatives, something more?
                          > >
                          > > Irvin
                          > >
                          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > But don't these dispositions and capacities limit the ability to freely use our intellect? How is intellect separate from them? Could you expand on your last clause? Thank you, Mary
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > From an existential view, I'd conclude that while our dispositions and capacities are wholly or
                          > > > partially innate, our freedom reposes in the intellect, in the means to take stock of the context we're in and, as Camus might say, to chuck it all.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • Jim
                          Irvin, Mary, I am interested to read what you both have to say on this subject. It is something I reflect on quite a bit. I agree that we form dispositions to
                          Message 12 of 27 , Nov 1, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Irvin, Mary,

                            I am interested to read what you both have to say on this subject. It is something I reflect on quite a bit.

                            I agree that we form dispositions to react in certain ways – no doubt these dispositions are partly determined by our genetic makeup, and partly determined by our upbringing and our cultural situation.

                            However, we can monitor our own thoughts, feelings and behaviour, and we can reflect on our instinctive or habitual ways of behaving, and we can override them with conscious attention and determined effort.

                            Some alcoholics do stop drinking and some of us change our behaviour as we get older as we see the consequences of our thoughtless actions. No doubt the determinist will say such changes are fully determined by the causal laws of the physical world and any thought that we are acting freely is pure delusion and self-deception. However, I do not think that the subjective experience that we are determining the course of our own lives can be dismissed so easily.

                            I agree that some – most – of the time I react spontaneously ("on auto-pilot") to what comes my way, but on the big decisions I deliberate for hours, days, years and here I coolly examine my own reasons as well as the possible outcomes of my actions. These big decisions do seem to me to be based on reason and not knee-jerk instinctive dispositions.

                            Agreed we do not know for sure if we are acting freely or if our actions are fully determined in a non-personal way. But given the uncertainty, we still must act on a particular conception of the self. I think that the conception of myself as a free individual, responsible for my own actions, is the only conception which preserves any meaning to human existence.

                            Jim
                          • Mary
                            Jim, Election day is a busy day for me, but here are a few quick thoughts. I think reason and emotion are entangled, and that for each person who is diligent
                            Message 13 of 27 , Nov 2, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim,

                              Election day is a busy day for me, but here are a few quick thoughts. I think reason and emotion are entangled, and that for each person who is diligent in their decision making, another person isn't. Is this the issue? While some of are agonizing over important decisions, others react simply in a straightforward, automatic manner, such as in the manner Irvin mentions. We talk about a self which is totally preoccupied with others, no matter the relationship, hostile or considerate, because others determine our state of being. This is only human. So whether we think we're reasoning by and in ourselves, or whether anyone else is doing likewise, we're stuck with this absurdism: we're each in this together. This is the limit Camus recognized.

                              Mary

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Irvin, Mary,
                              >
                              > I am interested to read what you both have to say on this subject. It is something I reflect on quite a bit.
                              >
                              > I agree that we form dispositions to react in certain ways – no doubt these dispositions are partly determined by our genetic makeup, and partly determined by our upbringing and our cultural situation.
                              >
                              > However, we can monitor our own thoughts, feelings and behaviour, and we can reflect on our instinctive or habitual ways of behaving, and we can override them with conscious attention and determined effort.
                              >
                              > Some alcoholics do stop drinking and some of us change our behaviour as we get older as we see the consequences of our thoughtless actions. No doubt the determinist will say such changes are fully determined by the causal laws of the physical world and any thought that we are acting freely is pure delusion and self-deception. However, I do not think that the subjective experience that we are determining the course of our own lives can be dismissed so easily.
                              >
                              > I agree that some – most – of the time I react spontaneously ("on auto-pilot") to what comes my way, but on the big decisions I deliberate for hours, days, years and here I coolly examine my own reasons as well as the possible outcomes of my actions. These big decisions do seem to me to be based on reason and not knee-jerk instinctive dispositions.
                              >
                              > Agreed we do not know for sure if we are acting freely or if our actions are fully determined in a non-personal way. But given the uncertainty, we still must act on a particular conception of the self. I think that the conception of myself as a free individual, responsible for my own actions, is the only conception which preserves any meaning to human existence.
                              >
                              > Jim
                              >
                            • Jim
                              Mary, Thanks for your reply. I agree that reason and emotion are entangled in all of us. And I also agree that some of us agonize over important decisions
                              Message 14 of 27 , Nov 2, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mary,

                                Thanks for your reply.

                                I agree that reason and emotion are entangled in all of us. And I also agree that some of us agonize over important decisions whilst others make their minds up straight away.

                                I don't think emotion is necessarily opposed to reason. The ideal situation is when our emotions and our reason are in harmony – when we both want to do what we decide is the reasonable thing to do. That is when what the heart says is the same as what the head says.

                                Irvin in the past has referred to Aristotle who talked about training ourselves to do the virtuous thing automatically. Rather like learning to drive a car, we practice so the correct actions which first require great effort later become automatic and second nature.

                                Another example: Think of the angry young man who decides to accept the offer of a place on an anger-management course. He makes the conscious, free, decision to go on the course, and, as a result, his emotional responses are modified.

                                Of course there are positive, beneficial emotions like love and sympathy and there are negative harmful emotions like aggression.

                                I wouldn't say hate or anger were necessarily negative emotions, as sometimes hatred and anger are the appropriate emotions to have. If I see bullying or wanton cruelty, I ought to be angry about this, and perhaps it is appropriate to feel hatred towards the perpetrators.

                                I agree it is only human to be preoccupied with others, especially as we all live inter-dependent lives.

                                I have been reading and discussing certain eastern ideas recently, and these include the idea that it is good to step back a little and be less attached to other people and material things. I haven't made my mind up about this yet, but I do think that some quiet time away from others for calm reflection on our lives and our situations is a good thing.

                                Jim
                              • Mary
                                Jim, What I admit to enjoying about philosophers, most recently Bohm and Zizek, is how they challenge the cliché and ordinary. Bohm thinks that thought is a
                                Message 15 of 27 , Nov 3, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Jim,

                                  What I admit to enjoying about philosophers, most recently Bohm and Zizek, is how they challenge the cliché and ordinary. Bohm thinks that thought is a complex system and as we develop throughout childhood, we actually adopt thoughts which bring pleasure, i.e. acceptance. He maintains that emotion and thinking are never separate, rather we experience a feedback loop. Zizek writes about hate as a form of love, an extraordinary response to systemic rather than overt acts of violence such as bullying. In this case, it seems one could hate someone, because we are so very hurt by their lack of insight, self-awareness, etc., and want much more from them. He applies this to a nation or socio-political system. It sounds off the track, but if you realize that by getting to the root of issues and being brutally honest, everyone is in the position of having to make important decisions, not just ourselves. To expect less than the best of people is condescending though seemingly tolerant. To settle for less is the kind of cowardice radical thinkers condemn. We live between all out conflict and total withdrawal, and compromise seems prudent, but I wonder if Zizek is right in believing nothing will change this way. Slow and easy, or fast and painful?

                                  Mary

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Mary,
                                  >
                                  > Thanks for your reply.
                                  >
                                  > I agree that reason and emotion are entangled in all of us. And I also agree that some of us agonize over important decisions whilst others make their minds up straight away.
                                  >
                                  > I don't think emotion is necessarily opposed to reason. The ideal situation is when our emotions and our reason are in harmony – when we both want to do what we decide is the reasonable thing to do. That is when what the heart says is the same as what the head says.
                                  >
                                  > Irvin in the past has referred to Aristotle who talked about training ourselves to do the virtuous thing automatically. Rather like learning to drive a car, we practice so the correct actions which first require great effort later become automatic and second nature.
                                  >
                                  > Another example: Think of the angry young man who decides to accept the offer of a place on an anger-management course. He makes the conscious, free, decision to go on the course, and, as a result, his emotional responses are modified.
                                  >
                                  > Of course there are positive, beneficial emotions like love and sympathy and there are negative harmful emotions like aggression.
                                  >
                                  > I wouldn't say hate or anger were necessarily negative emotions, as sometimes hatred and anger are the appropriate emotions to have. If I see bullying or wanton cruelty, I ought to be angry about this, and perhaps it is appropriate to feel hatred towards the perpetrators.
                                  >
                                  > I agree it is only human to be preoccupied with others, especially as we all live inter-dependent lives.
                                  >
                                  > I have been reading and discussing certain eastern ideas recently, and these include the idea that it is good to step back a little and be less attached to other people and material things. I haven't made my mind up about this yet, but I do think that some quiet time away from others for calm reflection on our lives and our situations is a good thing.
                                  >
                                  > Jim
                                  >
                                • Jim
                                  Mary, I have been thinking for a few days how best to reply to this very interesting and thought-provoking post of yours. I think on the Slow and easy, or
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Nov 7, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Mary,

                                    I have been thinking for a few days how best to reply to this very interesting and thought-provoking post of yours.

                                    I think on the "Slow and easy, or fast and painful?" question I tend towards the slow and easy option. However, I am keen to think further on the issues you have reported from Bohm and Zizek. I have obtained a copy of Zizek's "In Defense of Lost Causes" and I will start reading it shortly. I hope to return to these themes when I have reflected upon Zizek's arguments.

                                    Jim



                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Jim,
                                    >
                                    > What I admit to enjoying about philosophers, most recently Bohm and Zizek, is how they challenge the cliché and ordinary. Bohm thinks that thought is a complex system and as we develop throughout childhood, we actually adopt thoughts which bring pleasure, i.e. acceptance. He maintains that emotion and thinking are never separate, rather we experience a feedback loop. Zizek writes about hate as a form of love, an extraordinary response to systemic rather than overt acts of violence such as bullying. In this case, it seems one could hate someone, because we are so very hurt by their lack of insight, self-awareness, etc., and want much more from them. He applies this to a nation or socio-political system. It sounds off the track, but if you realize that by getting to the root of issues and being brutally honest, everyone is in the position of having to make important decisions, not just ourselves. To expect less than the best of people is condescending though seemingly tolerant. To settle for less is the kind of cowardice radical thinkers condemn. We live between all out conflict and total withdrawal, and compromise seems prudent, but I wonder if Zizek is right in believing nothing will change this way. Slow and easy, or fast and painful?
                                    >
                                    > Mary
                                    >
                                  • eupraxis@aol.com
                                    Jim, Would you like to do a coordinated reading of this text? Wil ... From: Jim To: existlist Sent: Sun,
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Nov 7, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Jim,

                                      Would you like to do a coordinated reading of this text?

                                      Wil


                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
                                      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Sent: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 7:05 am
                                      Subject: [existlist] Re: Belief belies disbelief





                                      Mary,

                                      I have been thinking for a few days how best to reply to this very interesting and thought-provoking post of yours.

                                      I think on the "Slow and easy, or fast and painful?" question I tend towards the slow and easy option. However, I am keen to think further on the issues you have reported from Bohm and Zizek. I have obtained a copy of Zizek's "In Defense of Lost Causes" and I will start reading it shortly. I hope to return to these themes when I have reflected upon Zizek's arguments.

                                      Jim

                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Jim,
                                      >
                                      > What I admit to enjoying about philosophers, most recently Bohm and Zizek, is how they challenge the cliché and ordinary. Bohm thinks that thought is a complex system and as we develop throughout childhood, we actually adopt thoughts which bring pleasure, i.e. acceptance. He maintains that emotion and thinking are never separate, rather we experience a feedback loop. Zizek writes about hate as a form of love, an extraordinary response to systemic rather than overt acts of violence such as bullying. In this case, it seems one could hate someone, because we are so very hurt by their lack of insight, self-awareness, etc., and want much more from them. He applies this to a nation or socio-political system. It sounds off the track, but if you realize that by getting to the root of issues and being brutally honest, everyone is in the position of having to make important decisions, not just ourselves. To expect less than the best of people is condescending though seemingly tolerant. To settle for less is the kind of cowardice radical thinkers condemn. We live between all out conflict and total withdrawal, and compromise seems prudent, but I wonder if Zizek is right in believing nothing will change this way. Slow and easy, or fast and painful?
                                      >
                                      > Mary
                                      >









                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Jim
                                      Wil, Yes, I would, but I am not ready to start just yet, as I first have to read Homo Sacer by Giorgio Agamben for a reading group here in Nottingham in
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Nov 7, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Wil,

                                        Yes, I would, but I am not ready to start just yet, as I first have to read "Homo Sacer" by Giorgio Agamben for a reading group here in Nottingham in early December.

                                        Is this a book you have read, or are interested in discussing?

                                        Jim



                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Jim,
                                        >
                                        > Would you like to do a coordinated reading of this text?
                                        >
                                        > Wil
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • eupraxis@aol.com
                                        Jim, Yes, indeed. I have it around here somewhere, and I wouldn t mind reading that one alongside you again, either. Let me know when you begin. Wil ... From:
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Nov 7, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Jim,

                                          Yes, indeed. I have it around here somewhere, and I wouldn't mind reading that one alongside you again, either. Let me know when you begin.

                                          Wil




                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
                                          To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:43 am
                                          Subject: [existlist] Re: Belief belies disbelief





                                          Wil,

                                          Yes, I would, but I am not ready to start just yet, as I first have to read "Homo Sacer" by Giorgio Agamben for a reading group here in Nottingham in early December.

                                          Is this a book you have read, or are interested in discussing?

                                          Jim

                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Jim,
                                          >
                                          > Would you like to do a coordinated reading of this text?
                                          >
                                          > Wil
                                          >
                                          >









                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Jim
                                          Wil, That s great. I have just ordered it from Amazon, so I should be ready to start reading it when it arrives (probably in a few days time). Jim
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Nov 7, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Wil,

                                            That's great. I have just ordered it from Amazon, so I should be ready to start reading it when it arrives (probably in a few days time).

                                            Jim



                                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Jim,
                                            >
                                            > Yes, indeed. I have it around here somewhere, and I wouldn't mind reading that one alongside you again, either. Let me know when you begin.
                                            >
                                            > Wil
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • fictiveparrot
                                            ... I m curious. How do you propose to coordinate reading? my readings tend to be quite uncoordinated despite my encouragement and reasonable ability at
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Nov 8, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              > Would you like to do a coordinated reading of this text?

                                              I'm curious. How do you propose to 'coordinate' reading? my readings tend to be quite uncoordinated despite my encouragement and reasonable ability at sport.

                                              Knottwitt
                                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                                              K, Jim and I have done this sort of thing before. An ensuing number of pages is recommended, and then discussed in some detail. You are welcome to come along.
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Nov 8, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                K,

                                                Jim and I have done this sort of thing before. An ensuing number of pages is recommended, and then discussed in some detail. You are welcome to come along. Giorgio Agamben; Homo Sacer, Sovereign Power and Bare Life Stanford, 1998).




                                                Wil



                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: fictiveparrot <knott12@...>
                                                To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                                Sent: Mon, Nov 8, 2010 7:49 am
                                                Subject: [existlist] Re: Belief belies





                                                > Would you like to do a coordinated reading of this text?

                                                I'm curious. How do you propose to 'coordinate' reading? my readings tend to be quite uncoordinated despite my encouragement and reasonable ability at sport.

                                                Knottwitt









                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Mary
                                                Thank you, Jim. I look forward to your comments, as well as Wil s. Mary
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Nov 10, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Thank you, Jim. I look forward to your comments, as well as Wil's. Mary

                                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Mary,
                                                  >
                                                  > I have been thinking for a few days how best to reply to this very interesting and thought-provoking post of yours.
                                                  >
                                                  > I think on the "Slow and easy, or fast and painful?" question I tend towards the slow and easy option. However, I am keen to think further on the issues you have reported from Bohm and Zizek. I have obtained a copy of Zizek's "In Defense of Lost Causes" and I will start reading it shortly. I hope to return to these themes when I have reflected upon Zizek's arguments.
                                                  >
                                                  > Jim
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Jim,
                                                  > >
                                                  > > What I admit to enjoying about philosophers, most recently Bohm and Zizek, is how they challenge the cliché and ordinary. Bohm thinks that thought is a complex system and as we develop throughout childhood, we actually adopt thoughts which bring pleasure, i.e. acceptance. He maintains that emotion and thinking are never separate, rather we experience a feedback loop. Zizek writes about hate as a form of love, an extraordinary response to systemic rather than overt acts of violence such as bullying. In this case, it seems one could hate someone, because we are so very hurt by their lack of insight, self-awareness, etc., and want much more from them. He applies this to a nation or socio-political system. It sounds off the track, but if you realize that by getting to the root of issues and being brutally honest, everyone is in the position of having to make important decisions, not just ourselves. To expect less than the best of people is condescending though seemingly tolerant. To settle for less is the kind of cowardice radical thinkers condemn. We live between all out conflict and total withdrawal, and compromise seems prudent, but I wonder if Zizek is right in believing nothing will change this way. Slow and easy, or fast and painful?
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Mary
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                • Jim
                                                  Wil and anyone else who is interested, I have just started reading Homo Sacer by Georgio Agamben. It seems to be a difficult book, but the topic strikes me
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Nov 18, 2010
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Wil and anyone else who is interested,

                                                    I have just started reading "Homo Sacer" by Georgio Agamben.

                                                    It seems to be a difficult book, but the topic strikes me as important.

                                                    I'll try to write up something on the first chapter or so at the weekend.

                                                    It will be great if you do re-read it and can offer your usual astute comments.

                                                    Jim


                                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Jim,
                                                    >
                                                    > Yes, indeed. I have it around here somewhere, and I wouldn't mind reading that one alongside you again, either. Let me know when you begin.
                                                    >
                                                    > Wil
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                                    > From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
                                                    > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    > Sent: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:43 am
                                                    > Subject: [existlist] Re: Belief belies disbelief
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Wil,
                                                    >
                                                    > Yes, I would, but I am not ready to start just yet, as I first have to read "Homo Sacer" by Giorgio Agamben for a reading group here in Nottingham in early December.
                                                    >
                                                    > Is this a book you have read, or are interested in discussing?
                                                    >
                                                    > Jim
                                                    >
                                                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Jim,
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Would you like to do a coordinated reading of this text?
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Wil
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                  • eupraxis@aol.com
                                                    Jim, It is a quirky text, you re right. Yes, I will read along with you. How astute my comments may be is highly speculative, however. Best, Wil ... From: Jim
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Nov 18, 2010
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Jim,

                                                      It is a quirky text, you're right. Yes, I will read along with you. How astute my comments may be is highly speculative, however.

                                                      Best,
                                                      Wil








                                                      -----Original Message-----
                                                      From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
                                                      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                                      Sent: Thu, Nov 18, 2010 7:34 am
                                                      Subject: [existlist] "Homo Sacer" by Georgio Agamben





                                                      Wil and anyone else who is interested,

                                                      I have just started reading "Homo Sacer" by Georgio Agamben.

                                                      It seems to be a difficult book, but the topic strikes me as important.

                                                      I'll try to write up something on the first chapter or so at the weekend.

                                                      It will be great if you do re-read it and can offer your usual astute comments.

                                                      Jim

                                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Jim,
                                                      >
                                                      > Yes, indeed. I have it around here somewhere, and I wouldn't mind reading that one alongside you again, either. Let me know when you begin.
                                                      >
                                                      > Wil
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                                      > From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
                                                      > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                                      > Sent: Sun, Nov 7, 2010 9:43 am
                                                      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Belief belies disbelief
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Wil,
                                                      >
                                                      > Yes, I would, but I am not ready to start just yet, as I first have to read "Homo Sacer" by Giorgio Agamben for a reading group here in Nottingham in early December.
                                                      >
                                                      > Is this a book you have read, or are interested in discussing?
                                                      >
                                                      > Jim
                                                      >
                                                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Jim,
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Would you like to do a coordinated reading of this text?
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Wil
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      >









                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.