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

Way too fragile

Expand Messages
  • William
    I understand why you are drawn to Zizak as he plays to parts of your particular disputes with traditional existentialism. Wil likes Marx and Zizak likes
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I understand why you are drawn to Zizak as he plays to parts of your particular disputes with traditional existentialism. Wil likes Marx and Zizak likes Marx. Jim likes christianity and Zizak likes christianity. Mary wants an anti capitalist revolution[non violent of course} and Zizak wants an end to capitalism. I do not like any of these ideas and so I greatly dislike Zizak.
      Let us see how fast we can move into the past. It has taken two thousand years to begin the dismantling of christianity but Jim will lead us back to the church and clergy. Sorry Jim,you take that trip without me.
      To Wil I just say that Marxism has killed millions and is a disgraced philosophy. We have been through this before but I restate my case for the record.
      Mary hates the capitalist class but slurps up all the goods and services the system provides in her life.
      I am immersed in Caucus politics and the only truth I hear comes from Perry who says Obama is destroying christianity. I hope so and applaude the president in his movement away from moribund systems and crackpot people. His unwritten alliance with the European common market with Merkel and the French is a viable way forward. It is not pie in the sky but hard slogging economics. Zizak and the rest of you should look at the worlds real leaders and leave that throwback,Zizak, to drift into obscurity. Bill
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      Bill, You re right that I like Marx, although I am not sure what that actually means for me. I like the theoretical Marx (1844 Paris manuscripts, Capital,
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 11, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill,

        You're right that I 'like' Marx, although I am not sure what that actually means for me. I like the theoretical Marx (1844 Paris manuscripts, Capital, etc.). But, as far as Zizek goes, my connection with him is with Lacan and Hegel, really. I was already a member of the NYC Lacanian Circle when Zizek entered the group. I liked him. He had a great sense of irony and really pick up the room. He was working on his second book, parts of which he read as papers, and I was thrilled by his stuff. I left the group sooner afterward and moved to New Orleans, but I kept up with his books as best I could. He writes them quicker than I can read them!

        Secondly, Marx never killed anyone, and his critiques of Capitalism do not contain anything that suggests a Stalin or a Mao. That's just the fact of the matter. In fact, they do not contain anything much about socialism or communistic society! He wasn't a social planner. He was a critic of the prevailing system. Revolution for Marx was based on the failure of the system itself, not on intrigues or tactics from the outside.

        But for someone who wanted to use nukes against the Arab world (is that still your position), your moral outrage sounds a little tinny to me. Just sayin'.


        Wil





        -----Original Message-----
        From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 11:44 am
        Subject: [existlist] Way too fragile





        I understand why you are drawn to Zizak as he plays to parts of your particular disputes with traditional existentialism. Wil likes Marx and Zizak likes Marx. Jim likes christianity and Zizak likes christianity. Mary wants an anti capitalist revolution[non violent of course} and Zizak wants an end to capitalism. I do not like any of these ideas and so I greatly dislike Zizak.
        Let us see how fast we can move into the past. It has taken two thousand years to begin the dismantling of christianity but Jim will lead us back to the church and clergy. Sorry Jim,you take that trip without me.
        To Wil I just say that Marxism has killed millions and is a disgraced philosophy. We have been through this before but I restate my case for the record.
        Mary hates the capitalist class but slurps up all the goods and services the system provides in her life.
        I am immersed in Caucus politics and the only truth I hear comes from Perry who says Obama is destroying christianity. I hope so and applaude the president in his movement away from moribund systems and crackpot people. His unwritten alliance with the European common market with Merkel and the French is a viable way forward. It is not pie in the sky but hard slogging economics. Zizak and the rest of you should look at the worlds real leaders and leave that throwback,Zizak, to drift into obscurity. Bill









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • William
        ... No one here picked up on the thread I put down about Spentnaz. They are the idealogues who are trying to revive marxist communism in Russia. They are the
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 11, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
          >
          > Bill,
          >
          > You're right that I 'like' Marx, although I am not sure what that actually means for me. I like the theoretical Marx (1844 Paris manuscripts, Capital, etc.). But, as far as Zizek goes, my connection with him is with Lacan and Hegel, really. I was already a member of the NYC Lacanian Circle when Zizek entered the group. I liked him. He had a great sense of irony and really pick up the room. He was working on his second book, parts of which he read as papers, and I was thrilled by his stuff. I left the group sooner afterward and moved to New Orleans, but I kept up with his books as best I could. He writes them quicker than I can read them!
          >
          > Secondly, Marx never killed anyone, and his critiques of Capitalism do not contain anything that suggests a Stalin or a Mao. That's just the fact of the matter. In fact, they do not contain anything much about socialism or communistic society! He wasn't a social planner. He was a critic of the prevailing system. Revolution for Marx was based on the failure of the system itself, not on intrigues or tactics from the outside.
          >
          > But for someone who wanted to use nukes against the Arab world (is that still your position), your moral outrage sounds a little tinny to me. Just sayin'.
          >
          >
          > Wil
          > Wil, I agree with your point that Marx was a force against a failed system. Look at the system the russians have lived under. The russians like strong man rule. The Tzars were the prototypes but what you say about Stalin is true about about the Tzars. It is also true about Putin as he is just the present incarnation of a strong man. The hooligan leadership in Russia may be looking for a new,or old,philosophical base. You might see marx as that base philosopher but I abhor such an idea. Marx was not russian but his ideas slip too easily into communist doctrine.
          No one here picked up on the thread I put down about Spentnaz. They are the idealogues who are trying to revive marxist communism in Russia. They are the direct antithisis of our Green Berets and I fear their fanaticism and organisation for the subversion of western democracys. The failed election in russia opens a crevasse in russian society that Spetnaz come oozing out of.
          As to nuking people in the near east it probably will not be Arabs. It could be Persians but we will probably not detonate. Israel is more likely to do the job for us. I just want no part in another conventional war in the mideast. It is a no where place with backward people who a hugely overbreed. Only oil has allowed them to become such a mess. I know Israel will not allow Hesbolla to over run the country and they may first strike to obliterate the Iranian bomb. It is pretty much out of our hands. Bill
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
          > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 11:44 am
          > Subject: [existlist] Way too fragile
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > I understand why you are drawn to Zizak as he plays to parts of your particular disputes with traditional existentialism. Wil likes Marx and Zizak likes Marx. Jim likes christianity and Zizak likes christianity. Mary wants an anti capitalist revolution[non violent of course} and Zizak wants an end to capitalism. I do not like any of these ideas and so I greatly dislike Zizak.
          > Let us see how fast we can move into the past. It has taken two thousand years to begin the dismantling of christianity but Jim will lead us back to the church and clergy. Sorry Jim,you take that trip without me.
          > To Wil I just say that Marxism has killed millions and is a disgraced philosophy. We have been through this before but I restate my case for the record.
          > Mary hates the capitalist class but slurps up all the goods and services the system provides in her life.
          > I am immersed in Caucus politics and the only truth I hear comes from Perry who says Obama is destroying christianity. I hope so and applaude the president in his movement away from moribund systems and crackpot people. His unwritten alliance with the European common market with Merkel and the French is a viable way forward. It is not pie in the sky but hard slogging economics. Zizak and the rest of you should look at the worlds real leaders and leave that throwback,Zizak, to drift into obscurity. Bill
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          Bill, No, I can t go along with old saw about Marx. Stalin was tsar-like because the tsar was a centuries old form of religious autocracy. Mao was emperor-like
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 11, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill,

            No, I can't go along with old saw about Marx. Stalin was tsar-like because the tsar was a centuries old form of religious autocracy. Mao was emperor-like because of the same in China. There is absolutely nothing in Marx that is similar.

            The question is, do we want an unjust system or not? If not, then .... . If so, then ... .

            Wil



            -----Original Message-----
            From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
            To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:45 pm
            Subject: [existlist] Re: Way too fragile







            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
            >
            > Bill,
            >
            > You're right that I 'like' Marx, although I am not sure what that actually means for me. I like the theoretical Marx (1844 Paris manuscripts, Capital, etc.). But, as far as Zizek goes, my connection with him is with Lacan and Hegel, really. I was already a member of the NYC Lacanian Circle when Zizek entered the group. I liked him. He had a great sense of irony and really pick up the room. He was working on his second book, parts of which he read as papers, and I was thrilled by his stuff. I left the group sooner afterward and moved to New Orleans, but I kept up with his books as best I could. He writes them quicker than I can read them!
            >
            > Secondly, Marx never killed anyone, and his critiques of Capitalism do not contain anything that suggests a Stalin or a Mao. That's just the fact of the matter. In fact, they do not contain anything much about socialism or communistic society! He wasn't a social planner. He was a critic of the prevailing system. Revolution for Marx was based on the failure of the system itself, not on intrigues or tactics from the outside.
            >
            > But for someone who wanted to use nukes against the Arab world (is that still your position), your moral outrage sounds a little tinny to me. Just sayin'.
            >
            >
            > Wil
            > Wil, I agree with your point that Marx was a force against a failed system. Look at the system the russians have lived under. The russians like strong man rule. The Tzars were the prototypes but what you say about Stalin is true about about the Tzars. It is also true about Putin as he is just the present incarnation of a strong man. The hooligan leadership in Russia may be looking for a new,or old,philosophical base. You might see marx as that base philosopher but I abhor such an idea. Marx was not russian but his ideas slip too easily into communist doctrine.
            No one here picked up on the thread I put down about Spentnaz. They are the idealogues who are trying to revive marxist communism in Russia. They are the direct antithisis of our Green Berets and I fear their fanaticism and organisation for the subversion of western democracys. The failed election in russia opens a crevasse in russian society that Spetnaz come oozing out of.
            As to nuking people in the near east it probably will not be Arabs. It could be Persians but we will probably not detonate. Israel is more likely to do the job for us. I just want no part in another conventional war in the mideast. It is a no where place with backward people who a hugely overbreed. Only oil has allowed them to become such a mess. I know Israel will not allow Hesbolla to over run the country and they may first strike to obliterate the Iranian bomb. It is pretty much out of our hands. Bill
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
            > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 11:44 am
            > Subject: [existlist] Way too fragile
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > I understand why you are drawn to Zizak as he plays to parts of your particular disputes with traditional existentialism. Wil likes Marx and Zizak likes Marx. Jim likes christianity and Zizak likes christianity. Mary wants an anti capitalist revolution[non violent of course} and Zizak wants an end to capitalism. I do not like any of these ideas and so I greatly dislike Zizak.
            > Let us see how fast we can move into the past. It has taken two thousand years to begin the dismantling of christianity but Jim will lead us back to the church and clergy. Sorry Jim,you take that trip without me.
            > To Wil I just say that Marxism has killed millions and is a disgraced philosophy. We have been through this before but I restate my case for the record.
            > Mary hates the capitalist class but slurps up all the goods and services the system provides in her life.
            > I am immersed in Caucus politics and the only truth I hear comes from Perry who says Obama is destroying christianity. I hope so and applaude the president in his movement away from moribund systems and crackpot people. His unwritten alliance with the European common market with Merkel and the French is a viable way forward. It is not pie in the sky but hard slogging economics. Zizak and the rest of you should look at the worlds real leaders and leave that throwback,Zizak, to drift into obscurity. Bill
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >









            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • William
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 11, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
              >
              > Bill,
              >
              > No, I can't go along with old saw about Marx. Stalin was tsar-like because the tsar was a centuries old form of religious autocracy. Mao was emperor-like because of the same in China. There is absolutely nothing in Marx that is similar.
              >
              > The question is, do we want an unjust system or not? If not, then .... . If so, then ... .
              >
              > Wil
              > Wil, a just system may not exist and ad hoc systems may be the best to be hoped for. The trick may be to float on the jetsam. Bill
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
              > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 12:45 pm
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Way too fragile
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
              > >
              > > Bill,
              > >
              > > You're right that I 'like' Marx, although I am not sure what that actually means for me. I like the theoretical Marx (1844 Paris manuscripts, Capital, etc.). But, as far as Zizek goes, my connection with him is with Lacan and Hegel, really. I was already a member of the NYC Lacanian Circle when Zizek entered the group. I liked him. He had a great sense of irony and really pick up the room. He was working on his second book, parts of which he read as papers, and I was thrilled by his stuff. I left the group sooner afterward and moved to New Orleans, but I kept up with his books as best I could. He writes them quicker than I can read them!
              > >
              > > Secondly, Marx never killed anyone, and his critiques of Capitalism do not contain anything that suggests a Stalin or a Mao. That's just the fact of the matter. In fact, they do not contain anything much about socialism or communistic society! He wasn't a social planner. He was a critic of the prevailing system. Revolution for Marx was based on the failure of the system itself, not on intrigues or tactics from the outside.
              > >
              > > But for someone who wanted to use nukes against the Arab world (is that still your position), your moral outrage sounds a little tinny to me. Just sayin'.
              > >
              > >
              > > Wil
              > > Wil, I agree with your point that Marx was a force against a failed system. Look at the system the russians have lived under. The russians like strong man rule. The Tzars were the prototypes but what you say about Stalin is true about about the Tzars. It is also true about Putin as he is just the present incarnation of a strong man. The hooligan leadership in Russia may be looking for a new,or old,philosophical base. You might see marx as that base philosopher but I abhor such an idea. Marx was not russian but his ideas slip too easily into communist doctrine.
              > No one here picked up on the thread I put down about Spentnaz. They are the idealogues who are trying to revive marxist communism in Russia. They are the direct antithisis of our Green Berets and I fear their fanaticism and organisation for the subversion of western democracys. The failed election in russia opens a crevasse in russian society that Spetnaz come oozing out of.
              > As to nuking people in the near east it probably will not be Arabs. It could be Persians but we will probably not detonate. Israel is more likely to do the job for us. I just want no part in another conventional war in the mideast. It is a no where place with backward people who a hugely overbreed. Only oil has allowed them to become such a mess. I know Israel will not allow Hesbolla to over run the country and they may first strike to obliterate the Iranian bomb. It is pretty much out of our hands. Bill
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: William <v.valleywestdental@>
              > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              > > Sent: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 11:44 am
              > > Subject: [existlist] Way too fragile
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > I understand why you are drawn to Zizak as he plays to parts of your particular disputes with traditional existentialism. Wil likes Marx and Zizak likes Marx. Jim likes christianity and Zizak likes christianity. Mary wants an anti capitalist revolution[non violent of course} and Zizak wants an end to capitalism. I do not like any of these ideas and so I greatly dislike Zizak.
              > > Let us see how fast we can move into the past. It has taken two thousand years to begin the dismantling of christianity but Jim will lead us back to the church and clergy. Sorry Jim,you take that trip without me.
              > > To Wil I just say that Marxism has killed millions and is a disgraced philosophy. We have been through this before but I restate my case for the record.
              > > Mary hates the capitalist class but slurps up all the goods and services the system provides in her life.
              > > I am immersed in Caucus politics and the only truth I hear comes from Perry who says Obama is destroying christianity. I hope so and applaude the president in his movement away from moribund systems and crackpot people. His unwritten alliance with the European common market with Merkel and the French is a viable way forward. It is not pie in the sky but hard slogging economics. Zizak and the rest of you should look at the worlds real leaders and leave that throwback,Zizak, to drift into obscurity. Bill
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [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.