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

Re: [existlist] Re: Arab Spring reaches the United Kingdom

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Bill, ... The news I m reading says the grandson brandished the shotgun. Whose news to believe? Perhaps our choice of news bulletins is also an expression
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 18, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Bill,

      On 18 July 2011 12:02, William <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      > In a small ,unrelated matter my house of member fought off a home invasion
      > last night. He is over seventy and a Army colonel of the Viet Nam era. He
      > fought hand to hand and then vanqiished the invader with a shotgun. This
      > story will have legs and I will duly report. As a US house member the FBI is
      > on the case. I have known Rep Boswell for better than twenty years and know
      > how foolish it would be to attempt to invade his home. He invaded the Au sha
      > valley. He eximplifies the third rule of shit:All that`s behind the bulls
      > ass is not shit. Bill
      >
      >
      The news I'm reading says the grandson brandished the shotgun. Whose news to
      believe?

      Perhaps our choice of news bulletins is also an expression of freedom?

      Cheers

      Herman


      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mary
      ... I do not respect individuals who charge the state with responsibility. Herman, But how are power and the state not synonymous, and how do you propose to
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
        I do not respect individuals who charge "the state" with responsibility.

        Herman,

        But how are power and the state not synonymous, and how do you propose to break the vicious cycle of the ignorant masses electing/or not such poorly educated and corrupt representatives, who then in turn continue to oppress. Most parents can't afford or have time themselves to provide a quality education for their children. In the meanwhile, we have an unfortunate number of students entering college who are practically illiterate and only concerned with discerning the distinct flavor of last night's vomit.

        Are you promoting a selfish elitist anarchy a la Nietzsche, because a level playing field is unnatural, or do you really think one can be deluded enough not to recognize how they benefit from the oppression of the toiling masses? Isn't your anarchy also what could be?

        Mary
      • Herman
        Hi Mary, ... The state is not something different from individuals acting and failing to act. The locus of action/inaction, and therefore the locus of freedom,
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 18, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Mary,

          On 19 July 2011 02:32, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

          > **
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
          > I do not respect individuals who charge "the state" with responsibility.
          >
          > Herman,
          >
          > But how are power and the state not synonymous,
          >

          The state is not something different from individuals acting and failing to
          act. The locus of action/inaction, and therefore the locus of freedom, is
          the individual.

          and how do you propose to break the vicious cycle
          >

          If I were to assume responsibility for the world, I would be as insane as
          Jesus Christ. If I can have any responsibility at all, it can only be
          limited to how I am in the world, not for how the world is.


          > of the ignorant masses electing/or not such poorly educated and corrupt
          representatives, who then in turn continue to oppress.

          Having identified the locus of action as the individual, I need to accept
          that I can only do what I can do. And what I can, and first must do, before
          aspiring to influence the world, is to demonstrate to myself that I have
          something that is worth saying. If I retain the capacity to be, within
          myself, as miserable a schmuck as the next person, why bother to attempt to
          turn the world into my likeness?

          > Most parents can't afford or have time themselves to provide a quality
          education for their children. In the meanwhile, we have an unfortunate
          number of students entering college who are practically illiterate and only
          concerned with discerning the distinct flavor of last night's vomit.

          >
          > Are you promoting a selfish elitist anarchy a la Nietzsche, because a level
          > playing field is unnatural, or do you really think one can be deluded enough
          > not to recognize how they benefit from the oppression of the toiling masses?
          > Isn't your anarchy also what could be?
          >
          >
          I accept without hesitation your statements to Bill that it takes courage to
          be an existentialist. For me, that courage lies in always accepting, never
          denying, that one is free, always free, and never a victim. How I am in the
          world is not determined by the world. That is always already the case. Do
          you believe that I need to tell humanity as much? And will anyone want to
          hear it?

          Cheers


          Herman



          > Mary
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • William
          ... Jim, your house members seem a cut above our politicians in parliment and the executives wrung them out. A very impressive ,British show. But look at the
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 19, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Mary,
            >
            > On 19 July 2011 02:32, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
            >
            > > **
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
            > > I do not respect individuals who charge "the state" with responsibility.
            > >
            > > Herman,
            > >
            > > But how are power and the state not synonymous,
            > >
            >
            > The state is not something different from individuals acting and failing to
            > act. The locus of action/inaction, and therefore the locus of freedom, is
            > the individual.
            >
            > and how do you propose to break the vicious cycle
            > >
            >
            > If I were to assume responsibility for the world, I would be as insane as
            > Jesus Christ. If I can have any responsibility at all, it can only be
            > limited to how I am in the world, not for how the world is.
            >
            >
            > > of the ignorant masses electing/or not such poorly educated and corrupt
            > representatives, who then in turn continue to oppress.
            >
            > Having identified the locus of action as the individual, I need to accept
            > that I can only do what I can do. And what I can, and first must do, before
            > aspiring to influence the world, is to demonstrate to myself that I have
            > something that is worth saying. If I retain the capacity to be, within
            > myself, as miserable a schmuck as the next person, why bother to attempt to
            > turn the world into my likeness?
            >
            > > Most parents can't afford or have time themselves to provide a quality
            > education for their children. In the meanwhile, we have an unfortunate
            > number of students entering college who are practically illiterate and only
            > concerned with discerning the distinct flavor of last night's vomit.
            >
            > >
            > > Are you promoting a selfish elitist anarchy a la Nietzsche, because a level
            > > playing field is unnatural, or do you really think one can be deluded enough
            > > not to recognize how they benefit from the oppression of the toiling masses?
            > > Isn't your anarchy also what could be?
            > >
            > >
            > I accept without hesitation your statements to Bill that it takes courage to
            > be an existentialist. For me, that courage lies in always accepting, never
            > denying, that one is free, always free, and never a victim. How I am in the
            > world is not determined by the world. That is always already the case. Do
            > you believe that I need to tell humanity as much? And will anyone want to
            > hear it?
            >
            > Cheers
            >
            >
            > Herman
            >
            >
            >
            > > Mary
            > >"And never a victim". I think that statement too strong . That is the genius of Liddy, his threat assessment and ranking of his enemies. Sure it is the elk assessing hid rival in the rut but some are that combative, that self possessed and that dangerous. Look at the three executives in the murdoc hearings. Those are preditory sorts with impressive killing skills. Liddy listed those he saw as truly dangerous. Not that is FN in action and as laudable as Boswells spirited defense of his home. Now leonard was a victim but defended the situation to a win. They have the assailiant in custody and Iowa has a new hero. I am wearing a John Wayne Tee shirt and leonard should be getting his designs ready. he can call it Tee shirts for votes. You can get away with that in southern iowa, that area is severly conservative.
            Jim, your house members seem a cut above our politicians in parliment and the executives wrung them out. A very impressive ,British show. But look at the valor of Boswel, he is a difficult man to confront. Bill
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • Jim
            Hi Herman, In your post to Mary you write: For me, that courage lies in always accepting, never denying, that one is free, always free, and never a victim. I
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 20, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Herman,

              In your post to Mary you write:

              "For me, that courage lies in always accepting, never denying, that one is free, always free, and never a victim."

              I am perplexed by this remark as more than once you have denied that human beings have free will, indeed you have denied that human beings are agents in any sense of the word.

              Please can you explain what you mean by stating that "one is free, always free, and never a victim", given what you have said in the past regarding free will and human agency.

              Jim
            • Herman
              Hi Jim, ... Sure. Recently, in the thread about the Murdoch empire, I wrote: Sticking to my descriptive paradigm, I would say that the reality underlying any
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 20, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Jim,

                On 21 July 2011 06:24, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:

                > **
                >
                >
                > Hi Herman,
                >
                >
                > In your post to Mary you write:
                >
                > "For me, that courage lies in always accepting, never denying, that one is
                > free, always free, and never a victim."
                >
                > I am perplexed by this remark as more than once you have denied that human
                > beings have free will, indeed you have denied that human beings are agents
                > in any sense of the word.
                >


                Sure. Recently, in the thread about the Murdoch empire, I wrote:

                Sticking to my descriptive paradigm, I would say that the reality
                underlying any political state of affairs is anarchy. That is necessarily
                so, if one subscribes to human freedom, which is not to be confused with
                free will. Freedom merely alludes to the fact that meanings and values are
                not inscribed in things, I am the author of them.



                >
                > Please can you explain what you mean by stating that "one is free, always
                > free, and never a victim", given what you have said in the past regarding
                > free will and human agency.
                >
                >

                So, I differentiate between freedom and free will. I acknowledge freedom and
                I reject free will. As I said above, freedom alludes to the fact that
                meanings and values are not inscribed in things. That means that any
                narrative account of myself that holds that I had to act in this or that way
                because of how the world is, is a lie to myself. Freedom means that there is
                nothing in the world that can compel me to any action, the world is not a
                sufficient explanation for how I am in it.

                Free will, on the other hand, is, as far as I can make out, a metaphysical
                and incoherent explanation for human behaviour. If you care to put forward
                your version of it, feel free.

                I hope the above clarifies.

                Cheers


                Herman




                > Jim
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mary
                Jim, I too am confused by Herman s position. He also once declared the individual doesn t exist. He judges my observation about the lives of particular boxers
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 20, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jim,

                  I too am confused by Herman's position. He also once declared the individual doesn't exist. He judges my observation about the lives of particular boxers as perverse but asserted he doesn't wish to turn the world into his likeness or tell humanity how it must be.

                  Mary

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Herman,
                  >
                  > In your post to Mary you write:
                  >
                  > "For me, that courage lies in always accepting, never denying, that one is free, always free, and never a victim."
                  >
                  > I am perplexed by this remark as more than once you have denied that human beings have free will, indeed you have denied that human beings are agents in any sense of the word.
                  >
                  > Please can you explain what you mean by stating that "one is free, always free, and never a victim", given what you have said in the past regarding free will and human agency.
                  >
                  > Jim
                  >
                • Herman
                  Hi Mary, ... Bill asked me for my view. I gave it. If you wish to construe that as me proselytising so be it. And you misrepresent me in another way. I gave a
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 20, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Mary,

                    On 21 July 2011 14:13, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

                    > **
                    >
                    >
                    > Jim,
                    >
                    > I too am confused by Herman's position. He also once declared the
                    > individual doesn't exist. He judges my observation about the lives of
                    > particular boxers as perverse but asserted he doesn't wish to turn the world
                    > into his likeness or tell humanity how it must be.
                    >
                    >
                    Bill asked me for my view. I gave it. If you wish to construe that as me
                    proselytising so be it.

                    And you misrepresent me in another way. I gave a clear qualification that if
                    I retained the capacity to be a miserable schmuck........blah blah blah


                    Cheers

                    Herman



                    > Mary
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Hi Herman,
                    > >
                    > > In your post to Mary you write:
                    > >
                    > > "For me, that courage lies in always accepting, never denying, that one
                    > is free, always free, and never a victim."
                    > >
                    > > I am perplexed by this remark as more than once you have denied that
                    > human beings have free will, indeed you have denied that human beings are
                    > agents in any sense of the word.
                    > >
                    > > Please can you explain what you mean by stating that "one is free, always
                    > free, and never a victim", given what you have said in the past regarding
                    > free will and human agency.
                    > >
                    > > Jim
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >


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