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

Being is change.

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Herman, Forgive me for trampling your comments regarding freedom, because they re philosophical and the very thing I crave. I reconcile what you and others
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 20, 2011
      Herman,

      Forgive me for trampling your comments regarding freedom, because they're philosophical and the very thing I crave.

      I reconcile what you and others call the pragmatic reality of politics with what you say about freedom as: the natural process of anarchy followed by cooperative limits to freedom, followed by more anarchy. The excluded (groupings with difference) agitate for inclusion until they eventually become part of the inert status quo, then some newly excluded agitate, and so on. (Hegel via Zizek?) Governments, which we often insist don't represent us individually, protect commerce regardless of human rights violations. This is proving impractical.

      I eagerly await any discussion which demonstrates their advocacy of practical violence is arguably better than any other.

      Mary
    • dick.richardson@rocketmail.com
      No, BEING is NOT change. BECOMING is change. Being is Eternal and unchanging. KNOW THY SELF. Talk of something AFTER knowing it. Not before knowing it. Talk of
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 20, 2011
        No, BEING is NOT change. BECOMING is change. Being is Eternal and
        unchanging. KNOW THY SELF. Talk of something AFTER knowing it. Not
        before knowing it. Talk of what you KNOW.
        rwr


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
        >
        > Herman,
        >
        > Forgive me for trampling your comments regarding freedom, because
        they're philosophical and the very thing I crave.
        >
        > I reconcile what you and others call the pragmatic reality of politics
        with what you say about freedom as: the natural process of anarchy
        followed by cooperative limits to freedom, followed by more anarchy. The
        excluded (groupings with difference) agitate for inclusion until they
        eventually become part of the inert status quo, then some newly excluded
        agitate, and so on. (Hegel via Zizek?) Governments, which we often
        insist don't represent us individually, protect commerce regardless of
        human rights violations. This is proving impractical.
        >
        > I eagerly await any discussion which demonstrates their advocacy of
        practical violence is arguably better than any other.
        >
        > Mary
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • tom
        Mary It would seem to me that as time goes on, more lethal weaponry and more intrusive survalence will make rebellion against the well equpiped military and
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 20, 2011
          Mary

          It would seem to me that as time goes on, more lethal weaponry and more intrusive survalence will make rebellion against the well equpiped military and police more and more difficult. In the days of storming the Bastile, guards probably only had 1 shot muskets. After they had shot, it was an even fight against the blacksmith and his hammer, Whereas, in Tenement Square a few government operatives were able to use high powered weapons to kill 88 or so I think. Even though, only 4 were killed at Kent State, it and Tenement Square are similar in my mind. This was the Orwellian assumption that even though the 3 superpowers usually pictured the others as bad guys, in many ways they were more similar than different.

          Peace
          Tom
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Mary
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 10:21 AM
          Subject: [existlist] Being is change.



          Herman,

          Forgive me for trampling your comments regarding freedom, because they're philosophical and the very thing I crave.

          I reconcile what you and others call the pragmatic reality of politics with what you say about freedom as: the natural process of anarchy followed by cooperative limits to freedom, followed by more anarchy. The excluded (groupings with difference) agitate for inclusion until they eventually become part of the inert status quo, then some newly excluded agitate, and so on. (Hegel via Zizek?) Governments, which we often insist don't represent us individually, protect commerce regardless of human rights violations. This is proving impractical.

          I eagerly await any discussion which demonstrates their advocacy of practical violence is arguably better than any other.

          Mary





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Herman
          Hi Mary, My wife and I are travelling around Tasmania at the moment, so Internet access will be a hit/miss affair for another week or so. I ve interspersed
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 21, 2011
            Hi Mary,

            My wife and I are travelling around Tasmania at the moment, so Internet
            access will be a hit/miss affair for another week or so. I've interspersed
            some comments below.

            On 21 March 2011 02:21, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

            >
            >
            > Herman,
            >
            > Forgive me for trampling your comments regarding freedom, because they're
            > philosophical and the very thing I crave.
            >

            No dramas here. Thank you for your clarification of anarchy as lawlessness.
            There is lots more room for investigation here. I doubt that the person who
            realises their freedom ever acts on the basis of a law, even though they
            might appear to comply with a law. What do you think?

            >
            > I reconcile what you and others call the pragmatic reality of politics with
            > what you say about freedom as: the natural process of anarchy followed by
            > cooperative limits to freedom, followed by more anarchy. The excluded
            > (groupings with difference) agitate for inclusion until they eventually
            > become part of the inert status quo, then some newly excluded agitate, and
            > so on. (Hegel via Zizek?) Governments, which we often insist don't represent
            > us individually, protect commerce regardless of human rights violations.
            > This is proving impractical.
            >
            > I eagerly await any discussion which demonstrates their advocacy of
            > practical violence is arguably better than any other.
            >
            >
            I understand the dilemma you raise. The "safe place" from which I view the
            machinations of the dialectic have been well-described by both the Buddha
            and JP Sartre. The structure of existence / becoming is such that it cannot
            be satisfactory, no matter how the deck chairs are arranged.

            In the meantime, be well

            Herman




            > Mary
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mary
            Herman, Thanks for replying during your travel. Here are a few thoughts. Actualized freedom is often met with discrimination and violence, because it s motion
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 21, 2011
              Herman,

              Thanks for replying during your travel. Here are a few thoughts.

              Actualized freedom is often met with discrimination and violence, because it's motion away from the status quo, also known as the safe place. Persons who think they're free, yet don't value freedom for others, are confused. Organizing for rights, guaranteed or assumed, and passive resistance are acceptable strategies for rearranging the deck chairs. And as I've been insisting lately, everybody is part of something that oppresses or liberates. The madness is they're woven together.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Mary,
              >
              > My wife and I are travelling around Tasmania at the moment, so Internet
              > access will be a hit/miss affair for another week or so. I've interspersed
              > some comments below.
              >
              > On 21 March 2011 02:21, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > Herman,
              > >
              > > Forgive me for trampling your comments regarding freedom, because they're
              > > philosophical and the very thing I crave.
              > >
              >
              > No dramas here. Thank you for your clarification of anarchy as lawlessness.
              > There is lots more room for investigation here. I doubt that the person who
              > realises their freedom ever acts on the basis of a law, even though they
              > might appear to comply with a law. What do you think?
              >
              > >
              > > I reconcile what you and others call the pragmatic reality of politics with
              > > what you say about freedom as: the natural process of anarchy followed by
              > > cooperative limits to freedom, followed by more anarchy. The excluded
              > > (groupings with difference) agitate for inclusion until they eventually
              > > become part of the inert status quo, then some newly excluded agitate, and
              > > so on. (Hegel via Zizek?) Governments, which we often insist don't represent
              > > us individually, protect commerce regardless of human rights violations.
              > > This is proving impractical.
              > >
              > > I eagerly await any discussion which demonstrates their advocacy of
              > > practical violence is arguably better than any other.
              > >
              > >
              > I understand the dilemma you raise. The "safe place" from which I view the
              > machinations of the dialectic have been well-described by both the Buddha
              > and JP Sartre. The structure of existence / becoming is such that it cannot
              > be satisfactory, no matter how the deck chairs are arranged.
              >
              > In the meantime, be well
              >
              > Herman
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > > Mary
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Herman
              Hi Mary, ... Thanks for your comments. Lately, I ve been given to thinking that the moment I align myself with other selves in such a way that such an
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 22, 2011
                Hi Mary,

                On 22 March 2011 15:07, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

                >
                >
                > Herman,
                >
                > Thanks for replying during your travel. Here are a few thoughts.
                >
                > Actualized freedom is often met with discrimination and violence, because
                > it's motion away from the status quo, also known as the safe place. Persons
                > who think they're free, yet don't value freedom for others, are confused.
                > Organizing for rights, guaranteed or assumed, and passive resistance are
                > acceptable strategies for rearranging the deck chairs. And as I've been
                > insisting lately, everybody is part of something that oppresses or
                > liberates. The madness is they're woven together.
                >

                Thanks for your comments.



                Lately, I've been given to thinking that the moment I align myself with
                other selves in such a way that such an alignment gets an inertia / momentum
                of its own, I have become a far greater threat to anyone than if my voice
                was only mine. I, as an individual, am far less able to limit the freedom of
                others than I as a member of a tribe, or a mob of sheep, whether they be
                angry or passive or whatever.



                I acknowledge, of course, that everyone's origin lies in groups of all
                kinds. But wilfully merging with a group is my prime political, and
                unethical, act. For I know upfront that no group can be free, or liberate.
                At best, I give myself a greater opportunity for oppression.



                Cheers

                Herman


                > Mary
                >
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hi Mary,
                > >
                > > My wife and I are travelling around Tasmania at the moment, so Internet
                > > access will be a hit/miss affair for another week or so. I've
                > interspersed
                > > some comments below.
                > >
                > > On 21 March 2011 02:21, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Herman,
                > > >
                > > > Forgive me for trampling your comments regarding freedom, because
                > they're
                > > > philosophical and the very thing I crave.
                > > >
                > >
                > > No dramas here. Thank you for your clarification of anarchy as
                > lawlessness.
                > > There is lots more room for investigation here. I doubt that the person
                > who
                > > realises their freedom ever acts on the basis of a law, even though they
                > > might appear to comply with a law. What do you think?
                > >
                > > >
                > > > I reconcile what you and others call the pragmatic reality of politics
                > with
                > > > what you say about freedom as: the natural process of anarchy followed
                > by
                > > > cooperative limits to freedom, followed by more anarchy. The excluded
                > > > (groupings with difference) agitate for inclusion until they eventually
                > > > become part of the inert status quo, then some newly excluded agitate,
                > and
                > > > so on. (Hegel via Zizek?) Governments, which we often insist don't
                > represent
                > > > us individually, protect commerce regardless of human rights
                > violations.
                > > > This is proving impractical.
                > > >
                > > > I eagerly await any discussion which demonstrates their advocacy of
                > > > practical violence is arguably better than any other.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > I understand the dilemma you raise. The "safe place" from which I view
                > the
                > > machinations of the dialectic have been well-described by both the Buddha
                > > and JP Sartre. The structure of existence / becoming is such that it
                > cannot
                > > be satisfactory, no matter how the deck chairs are arranged.
                > >
                > > In the meantime, be well
                > >
                > > Herman
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > > Mary
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mary
                Herman, Well, this is certainly much different than our self/individual conversations last year, but I completely understand, or misunderstood then :) It can
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 23, 2011
                  Herman,

                  Well, this is certainly much different than our self/individual conversations last year, but I completely understand, or misunderstood then :) It can be argued that limiting our culpability through noninvolvement has the opposite effect. As someone who regularly confuses lack of certainty with fear, I'm no longer silent about what's right. If the ideal isn't real, what is? It feels great to think lack of certainty absolves us, but many of our daily choices `helplessly' entangle us in the actions of groups we despise. Camus reminds us of an absurd tension between desire and limit, but never begs off commitment. It's impossible to predict exactly how we'll act in a spontaneous situation which requires a `heroic' act on behalf of `freedom fighters' yet speaking up or writing for them was once considered engagement.

                  Thanks,
                  Mary

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Mary,
                  >
                  > On 22 March 2011 15:07, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Herman,
                  > >
                  > > Thanks for replying during your travel. Here are a few thoughts.
                  > >
                  > > Actualized freedom is often met with discrimination and violence, because
                  > > it's motion away from the status quo, also known as the safe place. Persons
                  > > who think they're free, yet don't value freedom for others, are confused.
                  > > Organizing for rights, guaranteed or assumed, and passive resistance are
                  > > acceptable strategies for rearranging the deck chairs. And as I've been
                  > > insisting lately, everybody is part of something that oppresses or
                  > > liberates. The madness is they're woven together.
                  > >
                  >
                  > Thanks for your comments.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Lately, I've been given to thinking that the moment I align myself with
                  > other selves in such a way that such an alignment gets an inertia / momentum
                  > of its own, I have become a far greater threat to anyone than if my voice
                  > was only mine. I, as an individual, am far less able to limit the freedom of
                  > others than I as a member of a tribe, or a mob of sheep, whether they be
                  > angry or passive or whatever.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I acknowledge, of course, that everyone's origin lies in groups of all
                  > kinds. But wilfully merging with a group is my prime political, and
                  > unethical, act. For I know upfront that no group can be free, or liberate.
                  > At best, I give myself a greater opportunity for oppression.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Cheers
                  >
                  > Herman
                  >
                  >
                  > > Mary
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Hi Mary,
                  > > >
                  > > > My wife and I are travelling around Tasmania at the moment, so Internet
                  > > > access will be a hit/miss affair for another week or so. I've
                  > > interspersed
                  > > > some comments below.
                  > > >
                  > > > On 21 March 2011 02:21, Mary <josephson45r@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Herman,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Forgive me for trampling your comments regarding freedom, because
                  > > they're
                  > > > > philosophical and the very thing I crave.
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > No dramas here. Thank you for your clarification of anarchy as
                  > > lawlessness.
                  > > > There is lots more room for investigation here. I doubt that the person
                  > > who
                  > > > realises their freedom ever acts on the basis of a law, even though they
                  > > > might appear to comply with a law. What do you think?
                  > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I reconcile what you and others call the pragmatic reality of politics
                  > > with
                  > > > > what you say about freedom as: the natural process of anarchy followed
                  > > by
                  > > > > cooperative limits to freedom, followed by more anarchy. The excluded
                  > > > > (groupings with difference) agitate for inclusion until they eventually
                  > > > > become part of the inert status quo, then some newly excluded agitate,
                  > > and
                  > > > > so on. (Hegel via Zizek?) Governments, which we often insist don't
                  > > represent
                  > > > > us individually, protect commerce regardless of human rights
                  > > violations.
                  > > > > This is proving impractical.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I eagerly await any discussion which demonstrates their advocacy of
                  > > > > practical violence is arguably better than any other.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > I understand the dilemma you raise. The "safe place" from which I view
                  > > the
                  > > > machinations of the dialectic have been well-described by both the Buddha
                  > > > and JP Sartre. The structure of existence / becoming is such that it
                  > > cannot
                  > > > be satisfactory, no matter how the deck chairs are arranged.
                  > > >
                  > > > In the meantime, be well
                  > > >
                  > > > Herman
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > > Mary
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • Herman
                  Hi Mary and all, Home again. ... Thank you for continuing to evenhandedly consider whatever comes your way. I fondly remember those conversations from last
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 28, 2011
                    Hi Mary and all,

                    Home again.

                    On 24 March 2011 03:16, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > Herman,
                    >
                    > Well, this is certainly much different than our self/individual
                    > conversations last year, but I completely understand, or misunderstood then
                    > :)
                    >

                    Thank you for continuing to evenhandedly consider whatever comes your way. I
                    fondly remember those conversations from last year, and I remember them as
                    having been explorations of the boundary of self/not-self.



                    > It can be argued that limiting our culpability through noninvolvement has
                    > the opposite effect. As someone who regularly confuses lack of certainty
                    > with fear, I'm no longer silent about what's right. If the ideal isn't real,
                    > what is? It feels great to think lack of certainty absolves us, but many of
                    > our daily choices `helplessly' entangle us in the actions of groups we
                    > despise. Camus reminds us of an absurd tension between desire and limit, but
                    > never begs off commitment. It's impossible to predict exactly how we'll act
                    > in a spontaneous situation which requires a `heroic' act on behalf of
                    > `freedom fighters' yet speaking up or writing for them was once considered
                    > engagement.
                    >
                    > Thanks,
                    >

                    Thank you too, sincerely.

                    I think your observation about our actions in spontaneous situations is spot
                    on. At best, we discover what/who we are through what we have done, after
                    the fact.

                    Regarding ideals, if ethics is the aspiration to do no harm, then it is
                    hardly necessary to join any group i.e. share in the thoughts of a group, or
                    actually have thoughts at all. Consciousness is a learnt, group product,
                    produced for the sake of the being of the group.

                    And this brings us back to our conversations of last year. If we persist
                    with those lines of thought, and incorporate the above, then an ethical
                    individual, per se, does not exist. Or otherwise, if an individual does
                    exist, then it is unethical by it's very nature.

                    Cheers

                    Herman


                    >
                    > Mary
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Hi Mary,
                    > >
                    > > On 22 March 2011 15:07, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Herman,
                    > > >
                    > > > Thanks for replying during your travel. Here are a few thoughts.
                    > > >
                    > > > Actualized freedom is often met with discrimination and violence,
                    > because
                    > > > it's motion away from the status quo, also known as the safe place.
                    > Persons
                    > > > who think they're free, yet don't value freedom for others, are
                    > confused.
                    > > > Organizing for rights, guaranteed or assumed, and passive resistance
                    > are
                    > > > acceptable strategies for rearranging the deck chairs. And as I've been
                    > > > insisting lately, everybody is part of something that oppresses or
                    > > > liberates. The madness is they're woven together.
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > > Thanks for your comments.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Lately, I've been given to thinking that the moment I align myself with
                    > > other selves in such a way that such an alignment gets an inertia /
                    > momentum
                    > > of its own, I have become a far greater threat to anyone than if my voice
                    > > was only mine. I, as an individual, am far less able to limit the freedom
                    > of
                    > > others than I as a member of a tribe, or a mob of sheep, whether they be
                    > > angry or passive or whatever.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I acknowledge, of course, that everyone's origin lies in groups of all
                    > > kinds. But wilfully merging with a group is my prime political, and
                    > > unethical, act. For I know upfront that no group can be free, or
                    > liberate.
                    > > At best, I give myself a greater opportunity for oppression.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Cheers
                    > >
                    > > Herman
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > Mary
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Hi Mary,
                    > > > >
                    > > > > My wife and I are travelling around Tasmania at the moment, so
                    > Internet
                    > > > > access will be a hit/miss affair for another week or so. I've
                    > > > interspersed
                    > > > > some comments below.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > On 21 March 2011 02:21, Mary <josephson45r@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Herman,
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Forgive me for trampling your comments regarding freedom, because
                    > > > they're
                    > > > > > philosophical and the very thing I crave.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > No dramas here. Thank you for your clarification of anarchy as
                    > > > lawlessness.
                    > > > > There is lots more room for investigation here. I doubt that the
                    > person
                    > > > who
                    > > > > realises their freedom ever acts on the basis of a law, even though
                    > they
                    > > > > might appear to comply with a law. What do you think?
                    > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > I reconcile what you and others call the pragmatic reality of
                    > politics
                    > > > with
                    > > > > > what you say about freedom as: the natural process of anarchy
                    > followed
                    > > > by
                    > > > > > cooperative limits to freedom, followed by more anarchy. The
                    > excluded
                    > > > > > (groupings with difference) agitate for inclusion until they
                    > eventually
                    > > > > > become part of the inert status quo, then some newly excluded
                    > agitate,
                    > > > and
                    > > > > > so on. (Hegel via Zizek?) Governments, which we often insist don't
                    > > > represent
                    > > > > > us individually, protect commerce regardless of human rights
                    > > > violations.
                    > > > > > This is proving impractical.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > I eagerly await any discussion which demonstrates their advocacy of
                    > > > > > practical violence is arguably better than any other.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > I understand the dilemma you raise. The "safe place" from which I
                    > view
                    > > > the
                    > > > > machinations of the dialectic have been well-described by both the
                    > Buddha
                    > > > > and JP Sartre. The structure of existence / becoming is such that it
                    > > > cannot
                    > > > > be satisfactory, no matter how the deck chairs are arranged.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > In the meantime, be well
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Herman
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > > 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
                    Hello again, ... Though not certain, it s also possible our actions previous to that situation indicate how we will respond. Authenticity requires practice.
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 29, 2011
                      Hello again,

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi Mary and all,
                      >
                      > Home again.
                      >
                      > On 24 March 2011 03:16, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Herman,
                      > >
                      > > Well, this is certainly much different than our self/individual
                      > > conversations last year, but I completely understand, or misunderstood then
                      > > :)
                      > >
                      >
                      > Thank you for continuing to evenhandedly consider whatever comes your way. I
                      > fondly remember those conversations from last year, and I remember them as
                      > having been explorations of the boundary of self/not-self.

                      > > It can be argued that limiting our culpability through noninvolvement has
                      > > the opposite effect. As someone who regularly confuses lack of certainty
                      > > with fear, I'm no longer silent about what's right. If the ideal isn't real,
                      > > what is? It feels great to think lack of certainty absolves us, but many of
                      > > our daily choices `helplessly' entangle us in the actions of groups we
                      > > despise. Camus reminds us of an absurd tension between desire and limit, but
                      > > never begs off commitment. It's impossible to predict exactly how we'll act
                      > > in a spontaneous situation which requires a `heroic' act on behalf of
                      > > `freedom fighters' yet speaking up or writing for them was once considered
                      > > engagement.
                      > >
                      > > Thanks,
                      > >
                      >
                      > Thank you too, sincerely.
                      >
                      > I think your observation about our actions in spontaneous situations is spot
                      > on. At best, we discover what/who we are through what we have done, after
                      > the fact.

                      Though not certain, it's also possible our actions previous to that situation indicate how we will respond. Authenticity requires practice.

                      > Regarding ideals, if ethics is the aspiration to do no harm, then it is
                      > hardly necessary to join any group i.e. share in the thoughts of a group, or
                      > actually have thoughts at all. Consciousness is a learnt, group product,
                      > produced for the sake of the being of the group.

                      Do you mean we don't join groups since we're already naturally part of them; or that we should avoid or separate from groups, because they produce group think? I hope the first and doubt the latter is possible to any significant degree.

                      > And this brings us back to our conversations of last year. If we persist
                      > with those lines of thought, and incorporate the above, then an ethical
                      > individual, per se, does not exist. Or otherwise, if an individual does
                      > exist, then it is unethical by it's very nature.

                      Are you reiterating the individual doesn't exist and that any person who doesn't acknowledge s/he belongs to any group is therefore unethical?

                      Are you claiming since we automatically belong to groups, overtly joining organizations in an attempt to secure universal human rights is unnecessary because to do so will create harm to others, whether we intend so or not?

                      Thank you,
                      Mary

                      > Cheers
                      >
                      > Herman
                    • Herman
                      Thanks, Mary. My turn to think :-) Cheers Herman ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 30, 2011
                        Thanks, Mary.

                        My turn to think :-)

                        Cheers

                        Herman

                        On 29 March 2011 23:56, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

                        >
                        >
                        > Hello again,
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Hi Mary and all,
                        > >
                        > > Home again.
                        > >
                        > > On 24 March 2011 03:16, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Herman,
                        > > >
                        > > > Well, this is certainly much different than our self/individual
                        > > > conversations last year, but I completely understand, or misunderstood
                        > then
                        > > > :)
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > > Thank you for continuing to evenhandedly consider whatever comes your
                        > way. I
                        > > fondly remember those conversations from last year, and I remember them
                        > as
                        > > having been explorations of the boundary of self/not-self.
                        >
                        > > > It can be argued that limiting our culpability through noninvolvement
                        > has
                        > > > the opposite effect. As someone who regularly confuses lack of
                        > certainty
                        > > > with fear, I'm no longer silent about what's right. If the ideal isn't
                        > real,
                        > > > what is? It feels great to think lack of certainty absolves us, but
                        > many of
                        > > > our daily choices `helplessly' entangle us in the actions of groups we
                        > > > despise. Camus reminds us of an absurd tension between desire and
                        > limit, but
                        > > > never begs off commitment. It's impossible to predict exactly how we'll
                        > act
                        > > > in a spontaneous situation which requires a `heroic' act on behalf of
                        > > > `freedom fighters' yet speaking up or writing for them was once
                        > considered
                        > > > engagement.
                        > > >
                        > > > Thanks,
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > > Thank you too, sincerely.
                        > >
                        > > I think your observation about our actions in spontaneous situations is
                        > spot
                        > > on. At best, we discover what/who we are through what we have done, after
                        > > the fact.
                        >
                        > Though not certain, it's also possible our actions previous to that
                        > situation indicate how we will respond. Authenticity requires practice.
                        >
                        >
                        > > Regarding ideals, if ethics is the aspiration to do no harm, then it is
                        > > hardly necessary to join any group i.e. share in the thoughts of a group,
                        > or
                        > > actually have thoughts at all. Consciousness is a learnt, group product,
                        > > produced for the sake of the being of the group.
                        >
                        > Do you mean we don't join groups since we're already naturally part of
                        > them; or that we should avoid or separate from groups, because they produce
                        > group think? I hope the first and doubt the latter is possible to any
                        > significant degree.
                        >
                        >
                        > > And this brings us back to our conversations of last year. If we persist
                        > > with those lines of thought, and incorporate the above, then an ethical
                        > > individual, per se, does not exist. Or otherwise, if an individual does
                        > > exist, then it is unethical by it's very nature.
                        >
                        > Are you reiterating the individual doesn't exist and that any person who
                        > doesn't acknowledge s/he belongs to any group is therefore unethical?
                        >
                        > Are you claiming since we automatically belong to groups, overtly joining
                        > organizations in an attempt to secure universal human rights is unnecessary
                        > because to do so will create harm to others, whether we intend so or not?
                        >
                        > Thank you,
                        > Mary
                        >
                        > > Cheers
                        > >
                        > > Herman
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Herman
                        Hi Mary, Sorry for the delay. But I think it is not bad to get some clarity in my thinking, which I hope the delay has facilitated. ... I ve become vague on
                        Message 11 of 11 , Apr 1, 2011
                          Hi Mary,

                          Sorry for the delay. But I think it is not bad to get some clarity in my
                          thinking, which I hope the delay has facilitated.

                          On 29 March 2011 23:56, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

                          >
                          >
                          > Hello again,
                          >
                          >
                          > >
                          > > Thank you too, sincerely.
                          > >
                          > > I think your observation about our actions in spontaneous situations is
                          > spot
                          > > on. At best, we discover what/who we are through what we have done, after
                          > > the fact.
                          >
                          > Though not certain, it's also possible our actions previous to that
                          > situation indicate how we will respond. Authenticity requires practice.
                          >

                          I've become vague on what Heidegger ever meant by authenticity, and I'm
                          happy to recollect Sartre's anti-fundamentalist take.



                          >
                          >
                          > > Regarding ideals, if ethics is the aspiration to do no harm, then it is
                          > > hardly necessary to join any group i.e. share in the thoughts of a group,
                          > or
                          > > actually have thoughts at all. Consciousness is a learnt, group product,
                          > > produced for the sake of the being of the group.
                          >
                          > Do you mean we don't join groups since we're already naturally part of
                          > them; or that we should avoid or separate from groups, because they produce
                          > group think? I hope the first and doubt the latter is possible to any
                          > significant degree.
                          >

                          Yes, the first one. And I agree with you that the latter is impossible. But,
                          siding with Sartre, becoming an individual seems to be THE fundamental
                          project. He doesn't refer to it as becoming an individual. For him, it is
                          man trying to become God. To me, that is the same.



                          >
                          >
                          > > And this brings us back to our conversations of last year. If we persist
                          > > with those lines of thought, and incorporate the above, then an ethical
                          > > individual, per se, does not exist. Or otherwise, if an individual does
                          > > exist, then it is unethical by it's very nature.
                          >
                          > Are you reiterating the individual doesn't exist and that any person who
                          > doesn't acknowledge s/he belongs to any group is therefore unethical?
                          >

                          I am saying that the practice of becoming an individual is fundamentally
                          flawed, and I am agreeing with you that it is impossible to achieve. The
                          embarkation on that project is unethical.



                          > Are you claiming since we automatically belong to groups, overtly joining
                          > organizations in an attempt to secure universal human rights is unnecessary
                          > because to do so will create harm to others, whether we intend so or not?
                          >

                          Doing no harm does not require any action. It demands the abstaining from
                          action.

                          Cheers

                          Herman




                          > Thank you,
                          > Mary
                          >
                          > > Cheers
                          > >
                          > > Herman
                          >
                          >
                          >


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