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

Re: Living in sirendipty

Expand Messages
  • William
    ... A person such as you mention is also most interesting . She seems very close to my perspective and melding Sarte and Camus and science is a laudable
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 2, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
      >
      > Bil,
      >
      > I've never had the scientific background your education has provided you, but I do follow my interests. One of my offspring has found a way to merge her love for literature and her biochemistry research experience, and it delights me. She reads both Sartre and Camus but also writes for scientific journals and lay magazines which satisfy the public's curiosity about scientific discovery. She sent me her copies of "The First Man" and "The Age of Reason" as well as copies of her publications. Combining science with the humanities embodies the corpus of existentialist literature, and I see either or both as complementary perspectives.
      >
      > Mary
      >Mary, When I make an attempt to take on the perspective of another person I usaually learn something. I was recently looking at some verbal material from nuns on the bus. Nuns are not my favorite people but these women had some laudable ideas and a clear mission to the poor. It seems they are often opposed by right wing politicos and do quite well holding their ground. The nuns are not afraid to expose the greed and pure meanness behind the hard right. From a humanitarian standpoint those nuns are at the top. They say proudly that they are the real christians , doing the things christ told christians to do. I find them to be wildly idealistic but must admire their courage and no quit ways.
      A person such as you mention is also most interesting . She seems very close to my perspective and melding Sarte and Camus and science is a laudable objective. I think it is how the world can progress even though most people will have little idea of those combination of concepts. You know how hard it is to read Sartre and understanding Eienstein is a big chore. Very few will truly understand such difficult areas but they will explore the areas that can produce a viable future. When Erick Toffler wrote "Future shock" he had the zeal of those warrior nuns and the science knowledge to look into the future. Your niece might run onto new concepts that could change our substandard trajectory.The combination of philosopher,scientist and humanitarian is a perspective that could produce a great deal for the species, for the planet. I am glad to hear someone like that is alive and I wish her good luck in her adventure. Visionary! Bill
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Have to disagree somewhat with you on this, Bill. While science definitely influenced the this philosophy, literature was probably of at least equal importance. And let's not forget that science was co-opted by the state to create "individuals" to be measured, compared, shaped, and conformed through its institutions in order to meet its needs. We are not atomistic biological units placed in the social field for corporate benefit either. We aren't free and responsible because a god or a state says so. Thought, wherever it leads, does. Thought is not the enemy, and freedom lurks equally in the exception. A particular person is entangled with the universal developing whole. The particular person is divisible by other, and both science and literature bear witness to this phenomenon.
      > > >
      > > > Mary
      > > > Mary, it is true literature is of little interest to me. Almost all science interests me as I see it as the beacon of progress. It is the survivalist in me that leads me to science. Heavily written philosophy is of little interest to me, it is laborious to read and usually relates to little of use in the operating world. It is pretty much like poetry for me, I would rather read a service manuel. I remember PM from the Army. It would deal with subjects like how to clean and maintain your grenade launcher. When ever someone tells me I cannot acess a subject I go right to it. When I am told I cannot study war I volunteer for a war game. What really happens in a tornado, in a flood, in a hurricane, in a battle, in a car wreck, in a fist fight? Those are things that can snuff you out and I would rather know those things than Kirkegaars ideas about god.
      > > It is why I will not study religion or mystical foolishness as they do nothing to keep you alive or make your life easier. It is why I renounce faith and any moral system. Now only existentialism promotes such liberties as so I pick existentialism. You and I will never get to the same place by the same route, how could we? Bill
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > The preexistentialists were serious fellows. They came from mathematical backgrounds and demanded a rigor to their philosophical renderings. The later existentialists ,especially Camus, were influenced by psychological material and were less strict in their acepptance of included material.
      > > > > It may be we have examined most of the relevant things of worth so now we cleve to the imaginary, the improbable even the rediculous. I find those things that are at best coincidental to be outside the perview of existentialism. If you have been drunk and saw a purple cow it is not proper to include the study of purple cows in modernism. If you drop LSD and hallicunate a technicolor world of plastic people it does not belong in existentialism. If you fall into an altered state of consciousness of unknown origin your findings do not belong in existentialism. Pulling several of these events into a group of ideas that have no known origin do not belong in existentialism. They may be a fine serendipidous fun house for you but that fantasy land is not a part of existentialism. Existentialism began in the rational and even though that may be less colorful than imagined states it is more reliable as the philosophy rests on the real,not the believed or imagined. If you let your dreams rule your life you are an ungoverned person. Bill
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.