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

Re: Big dude

Expand Messages
  • Louise
    Sorry - by latest post, I meant 56621, the reply to Jim.
    Message 1 of 37 , Jan 15, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry - by latest post, I meant 56621, the reply to Jim.

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
      >
      > Tim,
      >
      > With time for reflection, I understand much better your position and your anger. Noting also your suggestion that we avoid communication, I do nevertheless wish to apologise for my arrogance. It hardly behoves me, in any case, to welcome anyone to the group when I am myself no longer able to write here.
      >
      > Especially after reading your latest post, I am sorry that you still intend to leave the list.
      >
      > Louise
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Tim Pendry <tptwkuk@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Why, thank you ...
      > >  
      > > 'Witticisms'. Sydney Smith was a wit. Bill is not.
      > >  
      > > If a list that purports to discuss existentialist philosophy seriously is nothing more than a bunch of clubbables prepared to tolerate rude idiocy, then it is clearly not what it claims to be.
      > >  
      > > As for attributing paranoia to a nation, I was merely cross-referring to Hofstadter and noticing a fact on the ground - there are more nutters who believe in conspiracy theory who claim to be educated on US forums than on European forums. The nation is not paranoid but large numbers of its depressed populace appear to be.
      > >  
      > > As for paranoia being 'existential', give us a break. Angst is existential. Paranoia is not. Paranoia is loss of the self into 'gerede' (Heidegger's term for the gossipy nonsense or chatter of life). Paranoia is what you engage in to avoid facing reality. Yes, it is clearly a close-knit group, very cosy, very lovable ... but evidently having bugger all to do with existentialist philosophy except as preening.
      > >  
      > > Your arrogant advice to me in your final group is not a welcome. I will leave this group soon but not while a paranoid interpretation of my interests and private and public life are at risk of being repeated. Perhaps you get rid of me whens omeone admits his misinterpretation and 'mauvaise foi' in this matter.
      > >  
      > > You must understand that a real professional will put up with many insults but not an insult about his professionalism. I am angry in a very heartfelt way. I have been insulted. To suggest what 'Bill' has suggested is grave and, if he was my equal in the real world, might well have seen him challenged in a more serious arena.
      > >  
      > > I suggest we avoid communication. I will respond to anything that has my name in it and vigorously. Otherwise, I am simply monitoring what buffoonish things might be said about me until I can leave with the record straight. I am absolutely appalled by the conduct of this group.
      > >  
      > > TP
      > >  
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: Louise <hecubatoher@>
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Saturday, 24 December 2011, 0:56
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Big dude
      > >
      > >
      > >  
      > > Tim,
      > >
      > > As someone who still reads the list but no longer contributes, I feel inclined to offer a few thoughts nevertheless.
      > >
      > > Whatever else it may also be, paranoia is an individual trait, that loses in interest by being attributed to a particular nation. I find your own response, in interpreting Bill's witticisms as rudeness, to be itself somewhat paranoid. I always enjoy Bill's paranoia, because it is so existential - i.e., rooted in experience and open to the new. A little shaking up, metaphorically speaking, never hurt anyone, and can throw up interesting results.
      > >
      > > This is, in its own peculiar terms, a close-knit group, and defies a commonplace interpretation as "closed". You have free expression here, and would be wise, if I may say so, to enjoy it and the whole sensation of the new, rather than to bridle at the differences from what is customary in your usual haunts. To speak de haut en bas by suggesting someone you do not know should "grow up", or that some of us should "get a life" reveals something about you which I am happy to forget forthwith.
      > >
      > > Welcome to the group.
      > >
      > > Louise
      > >
      > > P.S. So sorry you are not impressed. I am English, and marked by uncontrollable urges toward irony. Etc. I do like your seriousness, however, even though it dwells in a universe remote from my own. This last statement is certified irony-free.
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Tim Pendry <tptwkuk@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Will you kindly drop the paranoia about TPPR ... what is it about America today? It used to be 'reds under the beds' ...
      > > >  
      > > > There is no bloody agenda. I am a private individual separated from my perfectly legitimate business interest in regard to his intellectual interests. I am genuinely trying to draw your attention to two helpful sources - a seminal text from one of the leading existentialist philosophers a and an excellent blog by a contemporary British academic trying to work through these issues.
      > > >  
      > > > Neither source necessarily represents my view - I have differences with Heidegger on technology (and do not draw 'green' conclusions necessarily from existentialism) and I merely find Roden intellectually stimulating. I could have recommended others but I am buggered if I am going to help such rude people any more.
      > > >  
      > > > Some of you guys really do need to 'get a life' ... I've given full disclosure to 'Bill' who seems to be on another planet far removed from reasoned discourse and I reiterate that a) I don't want any bloody money and b) I don't want to organise you all (on the contrary, the thought fills me with utter despair). I have no agenda other than a sincere interest in ideas - though I have not been impressed so far.
      > > >  
      > > > Having said that, you (Mary) are clearly 'getting' it. Both trans-humanist and post-human models raise important issues about what it is to be human. One option you did not mention is speciation not through reproduction by evolutionary biological means but through cybernetically-assisted biological reproduction so that something recognisably human but 'advanced' (probably just different but better organised for survival) evolves out of homo sapiens sapiens that then itself becomes the master race. It is hard to find why we should not approve of this philosophically if we do not posit a God.
      > > >  
      > > > If you take issues of difference and complexity within humanity and the problem of the 'average' being significantly less accomplished than an increasingly self-selected elite under meritocratic conditions, then a great deal flows from this - the majority may (if they understand this) seek a conservative revolution with socialist characteristics to protect 'humanity' (the Vatican would love this) whereas facts on the ground, as the billions grow, may force the pace of non-biological evolution to create the managerial and creative resource for an 'eloi' class terrified of their proto-morlocks under conditions of threatened scarcity.
      > > >  
      > > > The logic is much as we seem to have to all intents and purposes now - a 'clever' (not wise) elite manipulating an unstable mass through the management of their wants and desires. The battleground may, in fact, be in surprising places. For example, the theory of 'erotic capital' may indicate the zone where one set of 'old' ideologues and a new set of thinkers may debate over the presentation and value of aesthetic humans.
      > > >  
      > > > Guided evolution may encourage the convergence of erotic capital with financial and intellectual capital (and this seems to be happening in our culture) so that the population at large is torn between primitive resentment at others' aesthetic advantages and a forlorn aspiration to have those advantages and/or live vicariously through the advantages of others.
      > > >  
      > > > Socialism, welfarism and so on are in danger of becoming associated not only with drabness, social control and conformity (thanks to past socialist experiments) but eventually with ugliness and conservatives can then exploit this through riding the market's interest in supplying any want or pleasure that ttransfer funds to itself.
      > > >  
      > > > Many of the failures of the egalitarian movement may come down to the sense amongst many of its target market that it is not much fun! Some anarchists respond by attempting to reintroduce the idea of Carnival (Bakhtin's concept) and, of course, we have the late Marxist Situationist impulse ... but most progressives still have not grasped the population's desire to share in the aesthetic and hedonistic elements of elite life and it is technology (the point of your question) that is spreading the ability of the mass to have vicarious and increasingly actual pleasure in a way that unnerves dour intellectuals and activists.
      > > >  
      > > > But it seems that I am not welcome on this Group ...
      > > >  
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________
      > > > From: Mary <josephson45r@>
      > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2011, 15:23
      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Big dude
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >  
      > > > Bill,
      > > >
      > > > If you follow the links Tim P. provided, you might get a better handle on the philosophical perspective being suggested. If one connects the dots between Heidegger's 'enframing' and 'destining' and an A.I. singularity, the question of an essential human nature is on the table-- or out the window. One could speculate that humans will become a slave race, mining and supply cyborgs/robots with the rare minerals necessary for their existence, or some kind of a revolution to thwart or end their reign. All in the realm of SciFi for now but raises some interesting existential questions. Will mind always exist?
      > > >
      > > > Mary
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Bill,
      > > > >
      > > > > I've only ever been able to land pan fish. In my infirmity I'm more like the Fisher King who spends time fishing to palliate my wound. I may have unintentionally hooked an armored catfish, since if Tim is who you say he is, he comes already protected against casual scurrility. There's much at the TPPR site relevant to our recent discussions and informative for its perspective of forewarning and forearming. Although I understand the need to advertise, I'm surprised such strategies are so public. With each nation enacting its own defamation, copyright, and censorship laws aimed at tightening internet borders, some new technology must loom to stem the tide of the useful/harmful information at our fingertips.
      > > > >
      > > > > However, my question is philosophical. What are the non-economic relevancies of creativity and identity? I hope that creativity in art and ideas has not been coopted by state and corporate interests or that identity is wholly in their hands. As institutions become more totalitarian, we need to watch carefully how they apply the tools of former enemies but continue the rhetoric of their founding mythologies. Philosophy and the arts remain the last bulwarks against dehumanizing forces. Artistic creations and the invention and movement of ideas are human enterprises, more so than technology, which even other species capably demonstrate. There's an immense difference between thinking for profit and the development of thought which leads to such a dead end.
      > > > >
      > > > > Mary
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Mary ,If you search our new member it seems he is a big internet fellow. You hooked him you land him. Good hunting,Bill
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
    • Louise
      Sorry - by latest post, I meant 56621, the reply to Jim.
      Message 37 of 37 , Jan 15, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Sorry - by latest post, I meant 56621, the reply to Jim.

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
        >
        > Tim,
        >
        > With time for reflection, I understand much better your position and your anger. Noting also your suggestion that we avoid communication, I do nevertheless wish to apologise for my arrogance. It hardly behoves me, in any case, to welcome anyone to the group when I am myself no longer able to write here.
        >
        > Especially after reading your latest post, I am sorry that you still intend to leave the list.
        >
        > Louise
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Tim Pendry <tptwkuk@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Why, thank you ...
        > >  
        > > 'Witticisms'. Sydney Smith was a wit. Bill is not.
        > >  
        > > If a list that purports to discuss existentialist philosophy seriously is nothing more than a bunch of clubbables prepared to tolerate rude idiocy, then it is clearly not what it claims to be.
        > >  
        > > As for attributing paranoia to a nation, I was merely cross-referring to Hofstadter and noticing a fact on the ground - there are more nutters who believe in conspiracy theory who claim to be educated on US forums than on European forums. The nation is not paranoid but large numbers of its depressed populace appear to be.
        > >  
        > > As for paranoia being 'existential', give us a break. Angst is existential. Paranoia is not. Paranoia is loss of the self into 'gerede' (Heidegger's term for the gossipy nonsense or chatter of life). Paranoia is what you engage in to avoid facing reality. Yes, it is clearly a close-knit group, very cosy, very lovable ... but evidently having bugger all to do with existentialist philosophy except as preening.
        > >  
        > > Your arrogant advice to me in your final group is not a welcome. I will leave this group soon but not while a paranoid interpretation of my interests and private and public life are at risk of being repeated. Perhaps you get rid of me whens omeone admits his misinterpretation and 'mauvaise foi' in this matter.
        > >  
        > > You must understand that a real professional will put up with many insults but not an insult about his professionalism. I am angry in a very heartfelt way. I have been insulted. To suggest what 'Bill' has suggested is grave and, if he was my equal in the real world, might well have seen him challenged in a more serious arena.
        > >  
        > > I suggest we avoid communication. I will respond to anything that has my name in it and vigorously. Otherwise, I am simply monitoring what buffoonish things might be said about me until I can leave with the record straight. I am absolutely appalled by the conduct of this group.
        > >  
        > > TP
        > >  
        > >
        > >
        > > ________________________________
        > > From: Louise <hecubatoher@>
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Saturday, 24 December 2011, 0:56
        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Big dude
        > >
        > >
        > >  
        > > Tim,
        > >
        > > As someone who still reads the list but no longer contributes, I feel inclined to offer a few thoughts nevertheless.
        > >
        > > Whatever else it may also be, paranoia is an individual trait, that loses in interest by being attributed to a particular nation. I find your own response, in interpreting Bill's witticisms as rudeness, to be itself somewhat paranoid. I always enjoy Bill's paranoia, because it is so existential - i.e., rooted in experience and open to the new. A little shaking up, metaphorically speaking, never hurt anyone, and can throw up interesting results.
        > >
        > > This is, in its own peculiar terms, a close-knit group, and defies a commonplace interpretation as "closed". You have free expression here, and would be wise, if I may say so, to enjoy it and the whole sensation of the new, rather than to bridle at the differences from what is customary in your usual haunts. To speak de haut en bas by suggesting someone you do not know should "grow up", or that some of us should "get a life" reveals something about you which I am happy to forget forthwith.
        > >
        > > Welcome to the group.
        > >
        > > Louise
        > >
        > > P.S. So sorry you are not impressed. I am English, and marked by uncontrollable urges toward irony. Etc. I do like your seriousness, however, even though it dwells in a universe remote from my own. This last statement is certified irony-free.
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Tim Pendry <tptwkuk@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Will you kindly drop the paranoia about TPPR ... what is it about America today? It used to be 'reds under the beds' ...
        > > >  
        > > > There is no bloody agenda. I am a private individual separated from my perfectly legitimate business interest in regard to his intellectual interests. I am genuinely trying to draw your attention to two helpful sources - a seminal text from one of the leading existentialist philosophers a and an excellent blog by a contemporary British academic trying to work through these issues.
        > > >  
        > > > Neither source necessarily represents my view - I have differences with Heidegger on technology (and do not draw 'green' conclusions necessarily from existentialism) and I merely find Roden intellectually stimulating. I could have recommended others but I am buggered if I am going to help such rude people any more.
        > > >  
        > > > Some of you guys really do need to 'get a life' ... I've given full disclosure to 'Bill' who seems to be on another planet far removed from reasoned discourse and I reiterate that a) I don't want any bloody money and b) I don't want to organise you all (on the contrary, the thought fills me with utter despair). I have no agenda other than a sincere interest in ideas - though I have not been impressed so far.
        > > >  
        > > > Having said that, you (Mary) are clearly 'getting' it. Both trans-humanist and post-human models raise important issues about what it is to be human. One option you did not mention is speciation not through reproduction by evolutionary biological means but through cybernetically-assisted biological reproduction so that something recognisably human but 'advanced' (probably just different but better organised for survival) evolves out of homo sapiens sapiens that then itself becomes the master race. It is hard to find why we should not approve of this philosophically if we do not posit a God.
        > > >  
        > > > If you take issues of difference and complexity within humanity and the problem of the 'average' being significantly less accomplished than an increasingly self-selected elite under meritocratic conditions, then a great deal flows from this - the majority may (if they understand this) seek a conservative revolution with socialist characteristics to protect 'humanity' (the Vatican would love this) whereas facts on the ground, as the billions grow, may force the pace of non-biological evolution to create the managerial and creative resource for an 'eloi' class terrified of their proto-morlocks under conditions of threatened scarcity.
        > > >  
        > > > The logic is much as we seem to have to all intents and purposes now - a 'clever' (not wise) elite manipulating an unstable mass through the management of their wants and desires. The battleground may, in fact, be in surprising places. For example, the theory of 'erotic capital' may indicate the zone where one set of 'old' ideologues and a new set of thinkers may debate over the presentation and value of aesthetic humans.
        > > >  
        > > > Guided evolution may encourage the convergence of erotic capital with financial and intellectual capital (and this seems to be happening in our culture) so that the population at large is torn between primitive resentment at others' aesthetic advantages and a forlorn aspiration to have those advantages and/or live vicariously through the advantages of others.
        > > >  
        > > > Socialism, welfarism and so on are in danger of becoming associated not only with drabness, social control and conformity (thanks to past socialist experiments) but eventually with ugliness and conservatives can then exploit this through riding the market's interest in supplying any want or pleasure that ttransfer funds to itself.
        > > >  
        > > > Many of the failures of the egalitarian movement may come down to the sense amongst many of its target market that it is not much fun! Some anarchists respond by attempting to reintroduce the idea of Carnival (Bakhtin's concept) and, of course, we have the late Marxist Situationist impulse ... but most progressives still have not grasped the population's desire to share in the aesthetic and hedonistic elements of elite life and it is technology (the point of your question) that is spreading the ability of the mass to have vicarious and increasingly actual pleasure in a way that unnerves dour intellectuals and activists.
        > > >  
        > > > But it seems that I am not welcome on this Group ...
        > > >  
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ________________________________
        > > > From: Mary <josephson45r@>
        > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2011, 15:23
        > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Big dude
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >  
        > > > Bill,
        > > >
        > > > If you follow the links Tim P. provided, you might get a better handle on the philosophical perspective being suggested. If one connects the dots between Heidegger's 'enframing' and 'destining' and an A.I. singularity, the question of an essential human nature is on the table-- or out the window. One could speculate that humans will become a slave race, mining and supply cyborgs/robots with the rare minerals necessary for their existence, or some kind of a revolution to thwart or end their reign. All in the realm of SciFi for now but raises some interesting existential questions. Will mind always exist?
        > > >
        > > > Mary
        > > >
        > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Bill,
        > > > >
        > > > > I've only ever been able to land pan fish. In my infirmity I'm more like the Fisher King who spends time fishing to palliate my wound. I may have unintentionally hooked an armored catfish, since if Tim is who you say he is, he comes already protected against casual scurrility. There's much at the TPPR site relevant to our recent discussions and informative for its perspective of forewarning and forearming. Although I understand the need to advertise, I'm surprised such strategies are so public. With each nation enacting its own defamation, copyright, and censorship laws aimed at tightening internet borders, some new technology must loom to stem the tide of the useful/harmful information at our fingertips.
        > > > >
        > > > > However, my question is philosophical. What are the non-economic relevancies of creativity and identity? I hope that creativity in art and ideas has not been coopted by state and corporate interests or that identity is wholly in their hands. As institutions become more totalitarian, we need to watch carefully how they apply the tools of former enemies but continue the rhetoric of their founding mythologies. Philosophy and the arts remain the last bulwarks against dehumanizing forces. Artistic creations and the invention and movement of ideas are human enterprises, more so than technology, which even other species capably demonstrate. There's an immense difference between thinking for profit and the development of thought which leads to such a dead end.
        > > > >
        > > > > Mary
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Mary ,If you search our new member it seems he is a big internet fellow. You hooked him you land him. Good hunting,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.