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

Re: [existlist] Re: Self / Other

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Jim, Thank you sincerely for your kind words. ... I think that the intention of changing the world always already includes a prior and unspoken belief that
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 3, 2011
      Hi Jim,

      Thank you sincerely for your kind words.

      On 3 April 2011 02:54, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > Herman,
      >
      > I am pleased to see you have returned to Existlist. You have a distinct
      > perspective and your recent posts have got us talking about philosophy
      > again, rather than just politics.
      >
      > I can agree with your outlook up to a point: certainly we (i.e. all human
      > beings) often leap into precipitous action when a moment's reflection would
      > have convinced us that on this occasion non-action would have been
      > preferable. Many of us have a disposition to become control freaks, and it
      > is a life-long task to resist this disposition.
      >
      >
      > Having said all this, I think you take the idea of the virtue of non-action
      > too far. In this post you write:
      >
      > "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."
      >
      > Here you seem to be saying that to try to change the world at all is always
      > a bad thing.
      >

      I think that the intention of changing the world always already includes a
      prior and unspoken belief that the world was already a bad place, in need of
      change. Any action is thus already a negative judgment on the world, a world
      which is essentially free of value and meaning in the absence judgment. What
      I am saying, therefore, is that action determines the world to be bad.



      >
      > But think again of the Good Samaritan. He was confronted by a world in
      > which a stranger was lying in the ditch covered in blood and possibly dying
      > after been beaten up by muggers. He imagined a different world in which the
      > poor unfortunate was been tendered to in a local inn and was on the road to
      > recovery. Surely the Good Samaritan was right to try to change the world for
      > the better.
      >


      The Good Samaritan, through his actions, judged the world to be a bad place,
      and suffered that. That's all. There is no right or wrong in judging and
      then suffering the consequences of judging, it is necessarily so that it
      happens, that's all.

      >
      > It was the Priest and the Levite who followed the non-action principle of
      > leaving the world as it is � a world which included a beaten-up man slowly
      > dying in a ditch.
      >
      >
      People do what they do, principles and rationalisations are offered up after
      the fact.


      > Now no doubt the Priest and Levite did not fail to act for Buddhist
      > reasons, but I wonder how you can reconcile your no-action principle with
      > the opportunity we all have to help those in need.
      >

      If you envisage a world in need, then you must suffer that. No-one can help
      alleviate that. But for the afflicted ones, how is it that the world is
      different to just how it should be ?



      >
      > In fact doesn't your own work with brain-injured people contradict your
      > no-action principle?
      >
      >
      Certainly. And whenever I act, I do suffer.

      Cheers


      Herman





      > Perhaps I have misunderstood your position on action and no action � I
      > recall I misunderstood some of your posts in the past � so if I have
      > misinterpreted you, I'm sorry, and I look forward to you correcting my
      > misinterpretation.
      >
      > Jim
      >
      >
      > >
      > > 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
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >


      [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, 2011
        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.