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

Re: The boy in the hole

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Correction: I meant to say, It s choosing to ignore something essential about yourself and acting contrary to that something.
    Message 1 of 25 , Feb 6, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Correction: I meant to say, It's choosing to ignore something essential about yourself and acting contrary to that something.

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
      >
      > I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a good example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify according to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely recall that Beauvoir wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand how a sadist's existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps their outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their motives were.
      >
      > Mary
    • eduardathome
      I do get it. I agree that Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting against that knowledge. I m just pointing out that Moussa in Mali would
      Message 2 of 25 , Feb 6, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I do get it.

        I agree that Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
        against that knowledge.

        I'm just pointing out that Moussa in Mali would not be acting in bad faith,
        since he IS evil. Therefore, he acts authentically.

        Your comment ... "To state that evil people are authentic is meaningless in
        an existential context" ... seems to imply that only good people can be
        authentic in an existential context. Why?? If authenticity is acting
        according to your knowledge of yourself, then surely this formula would
        apply as well to evil people.

        eduard

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mary
        Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:39 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

        I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
        turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a good
        example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify according
        to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is
        acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different choice, a
        choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to deliberate with
        himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning himself. Bad faith
        is knowing something about yourself and then acting against that knowledge.
        It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore something essential about
        yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely recall that Beauvoir
        wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand how a sadist's
        existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps their
        outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their
        motives were.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
        >
        > Interesting.
        >
        > Why is it "bad faith"?? If a sadist harms others, how can it be bad faith
        > since (1) he wants to harm you, and (2) he does harm you. It would be
        > different if he doesn't want to harm you, but does so because he thinks it
        > is required of him and decides some self justification.
        >
        > eduard
      • eduardathome
        Even then the evil person is acting in an existential context. They know they are evil. One cannot say that they are essentially good and are ignoring the
        Message 3 of 25 , Feb 6, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Even then the evil person is acting in an existential context. They know
          they are evil. One cannot say that they are essentially good and are
          ignoring the fact. That is why it is impossible to deal with these people
          in a rational manner. You can't connect with their good side because they
          don't have a good side, ignored or otherwise.

          eduard

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Mary
          Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:00 PM
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

          Correction: I meant to say, It's choosing to ignore something essential
          about yourself and acting contrary to that something.

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
          >
          > I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
          > turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a
          > good example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify
          > according to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad
          > faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different
          > choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to
          > deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning
          > himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
          > against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore
          > something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. I
          > vaguely recall that Beauvoir wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't
          > understand how a sadist's existential authenticity is the same as a
          > zealot's except perhaps their outcomes, but just because an outcome looks
          > the same, doesn't mean their motives were.
          >
          > Mary



          ------------------------------------

          Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

          Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        • Mary
          No you don t. A zealot terrorist doesn t believe he s evil. He think s he s doing the will of his god. He s acting authentically according to his own perceived
          Message 4 of 25 , Feb 6, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            No you don't. A zealot terrorist doesn't believe he's evil. He think's he's doing the will of his god. He's acting authentically according to his own perceived goodness, but it's not an existential authenticity because he isn't acting freely. You're confusing the fact that we consider him evil with the fact that he considers himself good. Two different things.

            Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
            >
            > I do get it.
            >
            > I agree that Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
            > against that knowledge.
            >
            > I'm just pointing out that Moussa in Mali would not be acting in bad faith,
            > since he IS evil. Therefore, he acts authentically.
            >
            > Your comment ... "To state that evil people are authentic is meaningless in
            > an existential context" ... seems to imply that only good people can be
            > authentic in an existential context. Why?? If authenticity is acting
            > according to your knowledge of yourself, then surely this formula would
            > apply as well to evil people.
            >
            > eduard
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Mary
            > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:39 PM
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
            >
            > I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
            > turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a good
            > example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify according
            > to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is
            > acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different choice, a
            > choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to deliberate with
            > himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning himself. Bad faith
            > is knowing something about yourself and then acting against that knowledge.
            > It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore something essential about
            > yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely recall that Beauvoir
            > wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand how a sadist's
            > existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps their
            > outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their
            > motives were.
            >
            > Mary
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
            > >
            > > Interesting.
            > >
            > > Why is it "bad faith"?? If a sadist harms others, how can it be bad faith
            > > since (1) he wants to harm you, and (2) he does harm you. It would be
            > > different if he doesn't want to harm you, but does so because he thinks it
            > > is required of him and decides some self justification.
            > >
            > > eduard
            >
          • Mary
            Only the person thinking existentially is thinking in an existentialist context. Existentialism is a discourse formed by philosophers who put forth certain
            Message 5 of 25 , Feb 6, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Only the person thinking existentially is thinking in an existentialist context. Existentialism is a discourse formed by philosophers who put forth certain concepts. Bad faith and authenticity is once such concept, and it only matters to an existentialist thinker.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
              >
              > Even then the evil person is acting in an existential context. They know
              > they are evil. One cannot say that they are essentially good and are
              > ignoring the fact. That is why it is impossible to deal with these people
              > in a rational manner. You can't connect with their good side because they
              > don't have a good side, ignored or otherwise.
              >
              > eduard
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Mary
              > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:00 PM
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
              >
              > Correction: I meant to say, It's choosing to ignore something essential
              > about yourself and acting contrary to that something.
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
              > >
              > > I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
              > > turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a
              > > good example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify
              > > according to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad
              > > faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different
              > > choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to
              > > deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning
              > > himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
              > > against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore
              > > something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. I
              > > vaguely recall that Beauvoir wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't
              > > understand how a sadist's existential authenticity is the same as a
              > > zealot's except perhaps their outcomes, but just because an outcome looks
              > > the same, doesn't mean their motives were.
              > >
              > > Mary
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              >
            • eduardathome
              Perhaps I don t. But, how can you say that he isn t acting freely . Surely he must be. He indeed acts according to his own perceived goodness. So if he
              Message 6 of 25 , Feb 6, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Perhaps I don't.

                But, how can you say that "he isn't acting freely". Surely he must be. He
                indeed acts according to his own perceived goodness. So if he acts in
                according to what he thinks, he is then doing so in good faith. But deeper
                than that, he is accepting to go by the evil of his god because he already
                is evil. For example, his god [through sharia law] says you should cut off
                a hand and foot of a thief. He accepts this particular direction, because,
                he is already inclined to harm others. The law simply suits what he is
                already inclined. The Islamic nut doesn't have an internal conflict, in
                that he knows he shouldn't harm people, but his religion is telling him to
                do so.

                You are accommodating the terrorist by making your own judgement of what he
                thinks. As long as he accepts a direction from outside, he is doing good.
                On that basis there would be no bad faith, since everyone who is doing evil
                must accept it and thus are doing what they consider as good. The 65 year
                old Dykes was acting in good faith by kidnapping that boy. He wanted to
                kidnap the boy and he did so. He is being authentic in an existential
                context ... which was my point from the beginning in regard to Moussa in
                Mali, although I prefer to say he is inherently evil. You want to say that
                inherently he is good, but just happens to accept an outside direction to do
                evil.

                eduard

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Mary
                Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:23 PM
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

                No you don't. A zealot terrorist doesn't believe he's evil. He think's he's
                doing the will of his god. He's acting authentically according to his own
                perceived goodness, but it's not an existential authenticity because he
                isn't acting freely. You're confusing the fact that we consider him evil
                with the fact that he considers himself good. Two different things.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                >
                > I do get it.
                >
                > I agree that Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
                > against that knowledge.
                >
                > I'm just pointing out that Moussa in Mali would not be acting in bad
                > faith,
                > since he IS evil. Therefore, he acts authentically.
                >
                > Your comment ... "To state that evil people are authentic is meaningless
                > in
                > an existential context" ... seems to imply that only good people can be
                > authentic in an existential context. Why?? If authenticity is acting
                > according to your knowledge of yourself, then surely this formula would
                > apply as well to evil people.
                >
                > eduard
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Mary
                > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:39 PM
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
                >
                > I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
                > turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a
                > good
                > example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify
                > according
                > to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is
                > acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different choice, a
                > choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to deliberate with
                > himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning himself. Bad faith
                > is knowing something about yourself and then acting against that
                > knowledge.
                > It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore something essential about
                > yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely recall that Beauvoir
                > wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand how a sadist's
                > existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps their
                > outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their
                > motives were.
                >
                > Mary
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                > >
                > > Interesting.
                > >
                > > Why is it "bad faith"?? If a sadist harms others, how can it be bad
                > > faith
                > > since (1) he wants to harm you, and (2) he does harm you. It would be
                > > different if he doesn't want to harm you, but does so because he thinks
                > > it
                > > is required of him and decides some self justification.
                > >
                > > eduard
                >




                ------------------------------------

                Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              • eduardathome
                [You don t get it. Bad faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn t free to
                Message 7 of 25 , Feb 6, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  [You don't get it. Bad faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to
                  make a different
                  choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to
                  deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning
                  himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
                  against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore
                  something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. ]

                  I don't see how a zealot who does violence against others is any different
                  from a sadist who does the same. The zealot may be following direction from
                  his religion, but he has made that choice already. Effectively the zealot
                  who does violence is a sadist who has found a particular religious direction
                  to be suitable for his own character. Both are acting authentically
                  according to an existential context. Both are acting according to their
                  perception of what is good [for them].

                  I don't think that one can say that a zealot isn't free to deliberate with
                  himself. You are suggesting that if he had a chance to deliberate, then he
                  would not be a zealot. At least not a zealot who does violence. But people
                  who are such zealots are already of a type who likes violence. The religion
                  only provides an avenue for doing so. Moussa is basically evil and his
                  religion enables him to do violence which he enjoys. He is acting
                  authentically.

                  eduard



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Mary
                  Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:31 PM
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

                  Only the person thinking existentially is thinking in an existentialist
                  context. Existentialism is a discourse formed by philosophers who put forth
                  certain concepts. Bad faith and authenticity is once such concept, and it
                  only matters to an existentialist thinker.

                  Mary

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                  >
                  > Even then the evil person is acting in an existential context. They know
                  > they are evil. One cannot say that they are essentially good and are
                  > ignoring the fact. That is why it is impossible to deal with these people
                  > in a rational manner. You can't connect with their good side because they
                  > don't have a good side, ignored or otherwise.
                  >
                  > eduard
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Mary
                  > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:00 PM
                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
                  >
                  > Correction: I meant to say, It's choosing to ignore something essential
                  > about yourself and acting contrary to that something.
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
                  > > turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a
                  > > good example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify
                  > > according to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad
                  > > faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different
                  > > choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to
                  > > deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning
                  > > himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
                  > > against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore
                  > > something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. I
                  > > vaguely recall that Beauvoir wrote about Sade using this argument. I
                  > > don't
                  > > understand how a sadist's existential authenticity is the same as a
                  > > zealot's except perhaps their outcomes, but just because an outcome
                  > > looks
                  > > the same, doesn't mean their motives were.
                  > >
                  > > Mary
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                  >
                  > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                  >




                  ------------------------------------

                  Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                  Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                • Murad Baig
                  Zealots are passionate but seldom wise. Read this extract from a book I am writing. Murad ... Although these five were the main architects of religion,
                  Message 8 of 25 , Feb 6, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Zealots are passionate but seldom wise.

                    Read this extract from a book I am writing.

                    Murad

                    ... Although these five were the main architects of
                    religion, religions were also shaped and distorted by a huge number of
                    passionate revisionists who ardently believed that God had personally given
                    them a divine mission to reform or redirect their interpretations of their
                    faiths. It is quite astonishing how a few, sometimes unbalanced, men were to
                    completely alter their religions and sometimes even create completely new
                    religions or major schisms within established religions. 
                     
                    One well documented fairly recent example is the
                    strange case of Shabbatai Zavi a scholarly young Jew who may have been
                    something of a manic depressive.  He
                    lived in Smyrna (Turkey) in the late seventeenth century. He used to suffer
                    fits of depression and would disappear for days until charged with fits of what
                    he called illumination where, what he called, a `higher power’ would direct him
                    to violate many of the very strict taboos of Judaism.  He was convinced that these `Holy Sins’ were
                    to lead him to a new set of holy commandments in a reformed new Judaism. He was
                    expelled from Smyrna in 1650, wandered for fifteen years and went to Gaza to
                    meet a great healer called Nathan who had proclaimed …”Thus saith the lord
                    Behold our savior commeth! Shabbatai Zavi is his name.” Nathan believed that
                    `the messiah’ had been trapped in a godless world from the beginning and would
                    now be freed. The news rapidly spread to many Jewish communities who began to
                    violate many Jewish practices, food and sexual taboos, roll on nettles, immerse
                    themselves in freezing water and follow other strange practices awaiting a
                    `Great Awakening’.
                     
                    In 1666, confident of the lord’s protection, he
                    went to see the Turkish sultan and was promptly arrested and given the choice
                    of death or conversion to Islam. To the shock of his ardent followers he
                    immediately converted but said he had to do this apostatic act in order to
                    `descend further into the realm of impurity’ that he described as `a holy sin’.
                    He however avidly studied the Muslim Sharia believing that he was also destined
                    to be a bridge between Judaism and Islam and bring the Jews back to their holy
                    land. Such trifling with deeply entrenched sacred laws caused him to be
                    initially exiled but, bizarre as his beliefs and actions were, Shibbatai
                    acquired many followers until he suddenly died in 1676. Two radical Shabbatean
                    sects however followed and led to a mass conversion of Jews.       
                     
                    His extraordinary example was not very different to
                    numerous other `divinely inspired’ men who were to cause every religion to
                    split and proliferate into dozens of sects and cults. The power of divinely
                    inspired passion and the gullibility of their followers were truly astonishing.
                    In some cases these revisionists were to turn well established religions
                    completely on its head. Paul was the most notable example and was to completely
                    hijack the very well established religion of Judaism, add a few fragments from
                    the words of a Jew called Issa (Jesus) and create a completely new religion
                    that he was to call Christianity. In the early nineteenth century, an
                    illiterate Arab Bedouin called Abd al Wahhab was to similarly completely hijack
                    Islam and made it intolerant and militant.
                     
                    Religions were not however solid edifices like some
                    great building. They were living traditions that grew and evolved like the
                    constantly spreading branches of great trees. The founders, apostles, priests
                    and patrons may have been their roots but religions were constantly evolving
                    and were to throw up numerous branches as they rose above the ground. Religions
                    could ignite passions among numerous leaders who were to make many new sects
                    and sub sects multiply with amazing speed.
                     
                    The huge number of `heresies’ that Christianity
                    spawned very soon after the crucifixion best illustrates this huge explosion of
                    religious deviations. Some of these were:
                     
                    Sabellianism:  Taught by
                    Sebellius (215 CE) in Rome, believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are
                    three faces of a single person, God. 
                     
                    Docetism:  This sect founded
                    by bishop Serapion of Antioch (197 – 203 CE) believed that Christ was not a real human being and did not
                    have a real human body. 
                     
                    Monophysitism:  They believed that
                    Jesus had two separate natures in one body.  Monophysitism is still alive
                    in several Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects.
                     
                    Adoptionism: They believed that
                    Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception
                    and then developed a divine nature. 
                     
                    Nestorianism:  Nestorius, the
                    Patriarch of Antioch (386 – 451CE) believed that Jesus had two natures of Man
                    and God that remained separate throughout his life and denied the idea of
                    virgin birth. 
                     
                    Apollinarianism:  They believe Jesus
                    Christ was not a real man, but not totally divine either. 
                     
                    Arianism:  Arius (250 -  336 CE), a priest in Alexandria believed that
                    Jesus Christ was a special creation by God for man's salvation. It became a
                    very powerful schism.
                     
                    Socianism:  This was a version
                    of Arianism that says that Jesus was an extraordinary man and not a divinity. 
                     
                    Donatism:  Named for its
                    leader Donatus the Great (355 CE). They were a group of extremist sects who emphasized
                    asceticism.
                     
                    Pelagianism:  Associated with
                    the Irish monk Pelagius who believed that original sin was not transmitted from
                    Adam and Eve to their children.
                     
                    Gnosticism:  They believed in the notion of a remote, supreme
                    divinity, source of great depth and profundity and believed in emanations of
                    further divine beings that were aspects of the God.
                     
                    Manicheanism:  This seems to have
                    become a separate religion that blends Christianity with Gnosticism, Mithraism,
                    neo-Platonism, and even many elements of Buddhism.  It gained many
                    followers and survived well into the middle Ages, where it influenced the large
                    communities of the Bogomils in the Balkans and the Cathars in southern France.
                     
                    Bogomils: They were adoptionist
                    but did not consider Jesus to be a part of a trinity. They did not also they
                    consider Mary the mother of God. They also believed that God had two sons,
                    Michael and Satan and that  Satan had created the material world and
                    attempted to create Adam, but was unable to create a soul. 
                     
                    Cathars:  They followed the basic
                    ideas of this Bogomil heresy and tried to live very simple, exemplary lives, even
                    refraining from physical pleasures and meat. They believed that the God of the
                    Old Testament was actually Satan who was responsible for the creation of the
                    material world.  These were
                    however only the some of the hundreds of religious deviations that appeared in
                    the early years of Christianity. They were to continue to multiply through the
                    centuries and even into modern times.
                     
                    Today though Roman Catholics are the largest
                    Christian community there are over five hundred different churches practicing
                    Catholic heresies all over the world. These include over twenty eastern Catholics,
                    forty Orthodox Christians and over two hundred schools of Protestant, Lutheran
                    and Anglican belief. There are also reformed churches, Methodists,
                    Antibaptists, Pentecost’s, Quakers, Adventists, Jehovah’s witnesses, and many
                    others.
                     
                    All these sects had equally good claims to being
                    the true path to the message of Christ. These sects and cults however had great
                    difficulty in establishing themselves as they faced staunch opposition from
                    equally ardent devotees of other sects. It was therefore the sect that
                    succeeded in getting the strongest political support that were able to vanquish
                    their rivals in a war with the swords of soldiers rather than with the flame of
                    spiritual superiority.
                     
                    These are the deviations in one just religion.
                    There are almost as many deviant versions of Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and all
                    other faiths.


                    ________________________________
                    From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 1:09 AM
                    Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

                    I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a good example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify according to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different choice, a choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to deliberate with himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning himself. Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting against that knowledge. It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore something essential about yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely recall that Beauvoir wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand how a sadist's existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps their outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their motives were.

                    Mary

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
                    >
                    > Interesting.
                    >
                    > Why is it "bad faith"??  If a sadist harms others, how can it be bad faith
                    > since (1) he wants to harm you, and (2) he does harm you.  It would be
                    > different if he doesn't want to harm you, but does so because he thinks it
                    > is required of him and decides some self justification.
                    >
                    > eduard
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Mary
                    > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:01 PM
                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
                    >
                    > You're conflating, or once again trying to reduce to the simplistic, the
                    > common meaning of the word authentic with existential authenticity. Zealots
                    > are not existentially authentic; they're not capable of bad faith, because
                    > they adhere to an ideology. To state that evil people are authentic is
                    > meaningless in an existential context.
                    >
                    > Mary
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Religious zealots are very authentic.  They aren't borrowing from the
                    > > public
                    > > trough but are twisted all on their own.  Granted Moussa got his training
                    > > in
                    > > Saudi, but he was already twisted when he chose to go there for training
                    > > in
                    > > the first place.  It was only a matter of choosing the best place to get
                    > > what he already agreed with.
                    > >
                    > > eduard
                    > >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: Mary
                    > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:41 PM
                    > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
                    > >
                    > > The authenticity of existentialism is one of self-awareness and weighing
                    > > personal ideas  and values against the grain to determine if they are
                    > > genuinely held or simply absorbed from culture and traditions. Ideologues
                    > > and religious zealots are not authentic, because they rarely question
                    > > themselves this way. They refuse to interact with those who oppose them;
                    > > they're intellectually incestuous, answering their doubts with deeper
                    > > commitment to their ideology. This isn't what existentialism espouses.
                    > >
                    > > Mary
                    > >
                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > I don't think that one can draw a fine line between people "doing what
                    > > > they
                    > > > can" and existentialism.  I take Existentialism as a sort of philosophy
                    > > > for
                    > > > the individual.  It doesn't have an impact on a more public plain.  Yes
                    > > > one
                    > > > should authentic to oneself, but what happens when you get a real
                    > > > sadistic
                    > > > nut-case who is authentic to himself by hurting others.  If you are
                    > > > following the action in Mali, you will know of Mohammed Moussa who had
                    > > > Timbuktu his hands for the past 10 months until the French drove him
                    > > > out.
                    > > > It was he who directed the Islamic police in applying a strict Sharia
                    > > > law.
                    > > > He ordered women to be completely covered and the men to grow beards.
                    > > > He
                    > > > was also responsible for having women raped, whipping, cutting off a
                    > > > hand
                    > > > or
                    > > > foot or both of thieves.  You could get caught up with his "police" for
                    > > > whatever even that supposed.  Moussa was being authentic.
                    > > >
                    > > > eduard
                    > > >
                    > > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > > From: Mary
                    > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 2:32 PM
                    > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole
                    > > >
                    > > > Let me restate this. Any individual, whether employed in the private or
                    > > > the
                    > > > public sector, cannot be excused from doing what they can. The reason
                    > > > existentialism is not just 'what everybody does anyway' is because it's
                    > > > a
                    > > > call for authenticity and doing what is worth your trouble. That there
                    > > > are
                    > > > no guarantees does impact our decisions but only if we don't chose. If
                    > > > we
                    > > > don't choose, someone else chooses for us. Freedom isn't even possible
                    > > > if
                    > > > no
                    > > > one is authentically choosing. For example, if someone declares they're
                    > > > just
                    > > > doing their job or that money is their primary goal, you know where they
                    > > > stand. Reacting to inauthentic people is like shadow boxing; taking a
                    > > > position is the only way someone else is free to take theirs.
                    > > >
                    > > > Mary
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary"  wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Oh eduard. Those "security people" are just doing what they can. Shit
                    > > > > happens. Not. This is why existentialism is more about 'what you can
                    > > > > do'
                    > > > > and how the personal intersects with the public than hindsight about
                    > > > > every
                    > > > > path is the same. What you think directly relates to how you act. If
                    > > > > liberty is important, then what the individual does, whether a private
                    > > > > citizen or a government, is important, is worth the trouble, is life
                    > > > > and
                    > > > > death for many. What's equally threatening to liberty is doing
                    > > > > nothing.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Mary
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome  wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > You mean "Asperger's".
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > The idea of chips  is disturbing.  The security people won't stop
                    > > > > > until
                    > > > > > they
                    > > > > > have chips in everyone.  Big threat to liberty.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > eduard
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > > > > From: William
                    > > > > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 6:07 PM
                    > > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > > > Subject: [existlist] The boy in the hole
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > We got the whole nut bag treatment with this  story. Gun violence,
                    > > > > > veteran
                    > > > > > acting out, child  abduction,  murder, kidnapping and suicide. It
                    > > > > > appears
                    > > > > > the FBI rescued the child who  had Augsburgers. This  story is one
                    > > > > > of
                    > > > > > modern
                    > > > > > disfunctionality.  and would seem to defy any  conclusion or attempt
                    > > > > > at
                    > > > > > prevention.
                    > > > > > Remember Dirty Harry when the nut job  invades the school bus? I
                    > > > > > wonder
                    > > > > > if
                    > > > > > Dikes did?
                    > > > > > It may be time to put up the drones and canvass the crazies all the
                    > > > > > time.
                    > > > > > Can the  computers do that? can the democracy stand it. We may be
                    > > > > > able
                    > > > > > to
                    > > > > > detect a weapon and any perp with  no gun rights could be
                    > > > > > intradicted
                    > > > > > for
                    > > > > > cause. The cops stop him and confiscate his weapon and take him to a
                    > > > > > treatment holding facility. It would probably  require implanting a
                    > > > > > chip
                    > > > > > that identifies the suspect  as  a mental problem. Gun plus + chip =
                    > > > > > take
                    > > > > > down. I can see this shaping up and think it is big brother to the
                    > > > > > maximum
                    > > > > > extent. The crazies just keep pushing the envelope of evil and is
                    > > > > > actually
                    > > > > > domestic terrorism. The  methodes that work against  Islamic
                    > > > > > terrorism
                    > > > > > could  work for  this domestic scourge. I hate the thought of it
                    > > > > > but
                    > > > > > know
                    > > > > > it will soon be  proposed. A nut job with a gun will be taken down
                    > > > > > automatically and we probably already have the technology with the
                    > > > > > drones.
                    > > > > > Welcome to the brave new world. Bill
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > ------------------------------------
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                    > > > > > nothing!
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > ------------------------------------
                    > > >
                    > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                    > > > nothing!
                    > > >
                    > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------------------------------
                    > >
                    > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                    > >
                    > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                    >
                    > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                    >




                    ------------------------------------

                    Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                    Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links



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