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

Re: [existlist] Re: Self / Other

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Mary, ... The limit of the correspondence I see is that life / becoming for both parties is necessarily unsatisfactory, and for the same structural reasons.
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 3 12:07 AM
      Hi Mary,

      On 3 April 2011 02:36, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > Herman,
      >
      > I recall you once noted that with Sartre's THE WORDS, he turned from plays
      > and novels. But then he strictly committed to political writing and
      > biography :) While you want to see in early Sartre's B&N a correspondence
      > Buddhism,
      >
      The limit of the correspondence I see is that life / becoming for both
      parties is necessarily unsatisfactory, and for the same structural reasons.
      Sartre, in a nutshell, derived all by himself the first two noble truths of
      Buddhism.




      > you won't find in the later CDR, of which he was most proud, along with a
      > few of his plays, such as NO EXIT and THE FLIES. Sartre stands firmly in a
      > line of German idealists, so while I agree with Jim that Existentialism is
      > divided between'solitaries' and those who give themselves to solidarity,
      > neither were strictly solitary but exhorted readers to discover their own
      > values, not on mountain tops, but in society. And we definitely don't find
      > non-involvement from Sartre, Camus, Beauvoir, Camus, Jaspers, Merleau Ponty,
      > or others. They might have disagreed upon limits, but not engagement per se.
      > The oneness Jim suggests you promote is quite different from Sartre's
      > totality and the dialectical process of groups within it. Actually, Camus
      > comes closest to what you think, in regards to revolution, but certainly
      > encouraged worker solidarity and opposition to capital punishment.
      >

      I certainly agree with you that Sartre rejected quietism et al, and embraced
      activism et al. But I never got a sense, anywhere, that this was because it
      was what he ought to do.



      > It seems you are saying there are only others, but we should live for
      > ourselves. I acquired my own copy of Sartre's DIRTY HANDS, so maybe I'll
      > read that alongside the Lennon biography.
      >

      Yes, in the mode of mindfulness or pure reflection, whether Buddhist or
      Humean or Sartrean, all phenomena are other ie not-self. Accepting that, any
      notion of what we should do is delusional :-) Stuff is happening, and no-one
      is doing it (or can do it), that's the extent of it.

      Cheers


      Herman



      > Thanks,
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Mary,
      >
      > >
      > > On 2 April 2011 04:29, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Herman,
      > > >
      > > > I agree with this, and tack on a reply to your other post. I'm having
      > > > difficulty understanding how organized action is less harmful than
      > personal
      > > > non-action, with this latter seeming impossible. You think organized
      > > > activities exacerbate or escalate what? And I suspect non-organized
      > activity
      > > > is still action, through our ordinary daily choices, such as what we
      > > > consume, where are taxes are spent, etc.
      > > >
      > >
      > > The action that necessarily precedes all actions is to constitute events
      > /
      > > phenomena as being caused by agency, free-willing no less. Whether that
      > > agent is God or self is identical in effect. The harm has been done. Now
      > the
      > > actor is guilty of the world and what it lacks.
      > >
      > > To act towards an imagined different world is to be oblivious to what
      > there
      > > is.
      > >
      > > Sartre's pure reflection and Buddhist mindfulness come to mind here.
      > >
      > > Cheers
      > >
      > >
      > > Herman
      > >
      > >
      > > > Mary
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi all,
      > > > >
      > > > > This post could have been tacked on to many recent posts. For many
      > recent
      > > > > posts have triggered these thoughts.
      > > > >
      > > > > I thought'd I'd avoid the injustice of it all, and start a new
      > thread.
      > > > >
      > > > > The category Self is no more than an instance of the category Other.
      > > > >
      > > > > There is, in reality, no privileged access to Self that justifies
      > > > > demarcation from Other.
      > > > >
      > > > > Sartre was very precisely accurate in noticing that all phenomena are
      > > > Other,
      > > > > in their structural dependence on negation.
      > > > >
      > > > > Cheers
      > > > >
      > > > > Herman
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [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]
    • Herman
      Thanks for your thoughts, Bill, Mary and Jim, Much appreciated. Cheers Herman ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 67 of 67 , Apr 23 8:16 PM
        Thanks for your thoughts, Bill, Mary and Jim,

        Much appreciated.

        Cheers

        Herman

        On 24 April 2011 03:30, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > Herman,
        >
        > I wonder if you have read Schopenhauer on music. My guess is you have and
        > you agree with his take on music. He argues that music connects us with the
        > underlying oneness of ultimate reality, whereas language and science are
        > part of the veil of Maya. For Schopenhauer conceptual thought is bad because
        > it is all part of the will-to-live, whereas music is not at all part of
        > conceptual thought, but is more like a direct intuition of
        > reality-in-itself.
        >
        > So for Schopenhauer only music without lyrics would be considered untainted
        > by our concepts and reasoning abilities.
        >
        > Music has been a positive presence in my life. Like Bill I prefer
        > contemporary popular music to classical music, although I appreciate
        > different genres of music.
        >
        > As a teenager I identified with the punk movement that developed in the UK
        > in the late seventies. Then music was all about rebellion and distancing
        > oneself from the boring and hypocritical establishment.
        >
        > I still prefer music with an edge to it, but I appreciate more calm
        > harmonies rather than just the rebel yells these days.
        >
        > Jim
        >
        > P.S. Louise, I don't know what kind of music you like these days, but I
        > wonder if you would like P. J. Harvey's latest release "Let England Shake".
        > The subject matter makes me think you may enjoy it.
        >
        >
        >


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