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

Re: significant difference

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    But eduard what you ve just now espoused is radical individualism, and it conflicts with what wrote you wrote previously: I am not advocating radical
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 10, 2013
      But eduard what you've just now espoused is radical individualism, and it conflicts with what wrote you wrote previously: "I am not advocating radical individualism. There are shared ideas and also ideas which may differ between individuals and for which there may be disagreement. In a civilized society we try to deal with our disagreements." I don't understand your concern with the authenticity of evil. What is society except others? Authenticity is a relationship not only with yourself but with others. Together with freedom and responsibility they are existentialist touchstones. Evil matters, but not because it's authentic.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
      >
      > Why??
      >
      > Why should we have to consider whether the authentically evil person is
      > responsible for someone else?? What has the "other" got to do with
      > anything?? You are authentic if you act as you think or believe. Simple.
      > Period. If you are inclined to evil and it is in your character, why should
      > we have to add the further qualification of whether there is some "other" in
      > the mix??
      >
      > You are adding all sorts of qualifications without explaining how these
      > matter.
      >
      > eduard
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:10 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] significant difference
      >
      > The existentialist proof for whether someone is acting authentically is
      > whether they acknowledge intersubjectivity. An authentically evil person is
      > responsible for whom? To what is he committed other than acting at the
      > expense of others' freedom. To attribute the isolated concepts of
      > authenticity, freedom, and responsibility to an evil person is to ignore
      > whether these concepts are merged within that person and whether that person
      > values them enough to respect them in others.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      >
    • devindersingh
      Do you know what it means to be completely individualised? Capable of resisting all outer influences?...at least ninety-nine parts of an individual s character
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 10, 2013
        Do you know what it means to be completely individualised? Capable of
        resisting all outer influences?...at least ninety-nine parts of an
        individual's character are made of soft butter – inedible of
        course... but on which if one presses one's thumb, an imprint is made.
        Now, everything is a "thumb": an expressed thought, a sentence read, an
        object looked at, an observation of what someone else does, and of one's
        neighbour's will. And all these wills... you know, when one sees them
        they are all there, like this, inter- mingled, each one trying to get
        the uppermost and causing a kind of perpetual conflict within,
        outside... It goes in and out of people like that, you see, like
        electric currents. One is not at all aware of all this, and it is a
        perpetual conflict of all the wills which are trying to express
        themselves; and the strongest one will succeed. But as there are many of
        these and as one has to fight alone against a great number, it is not
        easy.


        So one is tossed like a cork on the waves of the sea... One day one
        wants this, the next day one wants that, at one moment one is pushed
        from this side, at another from that, now one lifts one's face to the
        sky, now one is sunk deep in a hole. And so this is the existence one
        has!

        First one must become a conscious, well-knit, individualised being, who
        exists in himself, by himself, independently of all his surroundings,
        who can hear anything, read anything, see anything without changing. He
        receives from outside only what he wants to receive; he automatically
        refuses all that is not in conformity with his plan and nothing can
        leave an imprint on him unless he agrees to receive the imprint. Then
        one begins to become an individuality!

        inance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/553

        http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/3057
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
        >
        > But eduard what you've just now espoused is radical individualism, and
        it conflicts with what wrote you wrote previously: "I am not advocating
        radical individualism. There are shared ideas and also ideas which may
        differ between individuals and for which there may be disagreement. In a
        civilized society we try to deal with our disagreements." I don't
        understand your concern with the authenticity of evil. What is society
        except others? Authenticity is a relationship not only with yourself but
        with others. Together with freedom and responsibility they are
        existentialist touchstones. Evil matters, but not because it's
        authentic.
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
        > >
        > > Why??
        > >
        > > Why should we have to consider whether the authentically evil person
        is
        > > responsible for someone else?? What has the "other" got to do with
        > > anything?? You are authentic if you act as you think or believe.
        Simple.
        > > Period. If you are inclined to evil and it is in your character, why
        should
        > > we have to add the further qualification of whether there is some
        "other" in
        > > the mix??
        > >
        > > You are adding all sorts of qualifications without explaining how
        these
        > > matter.
        > >
        > > eduard
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Mary
        > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:10 PM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] significant difference
        > >
        > > The existentialist proof for whether someone is acting authentically
        is
        > > whether they acknowledge intersubjectivity. An authentically evil
        person is
        > > responsible for whom? To what is he committed other than acting at
        the
        > > expense of others' freedom. To attribute the isolated concepts of
        > > authenticity, freedom, and responsibility to an evil person is to
        ignore
        > > whether these concepts are merged within that person and whether
        that person
        > > values them enough to respect them in others.
        > >
        > > Mary



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • eduardathome
        [Authenticity is a relationship not only with yourself but with others.} Obviously an authentic act will be with respect others, but how does that qualify
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 11, 2013
          [Authenticity is a relationship not only with yourself but with others.}

          Obviously an authentic act will be with respect others, but how does that
          qualify whether one is authentic or not??

          I am not espousing "radical individualism", whatever that is. I am simply
          stating that when you choose to act, it is an individual's choice. You may
          take others into consideration when choosing ... and it would be nice to do
          so ... but it isn't a requirement as to say that you can not choose without
          considering others.

          eduard

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Mary
          Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:59 PM
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [existlist] Re: significant difference

          But eduard what you've just now espoused is radical individualism, and it
          conflicts with what wrote you wrote previously: "I am not advocating radical
          individualism. There are shared ideas and also ideas which may differ
          between individuals and for which there may be disagreement. In a civilized
          society we try to deal with our disagreements." I don't understand your
          concern with the authenticity of evil. What is society except others?
          Authenticity is a relationship not only with yourself but with others.
          Together with freedom and responsibility they are existentialist
          touchstones. Evil matters, but not because it's authentic.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
          >
          > Why??
          >
          > Why should we have to consider whether the authentically evil person is
          > responsible for someone else?? What has the "other" got to do with
          > anything?? You are authentic if you act as you think or believe. Simple.
          > Period. If you are inclined to evil and it is in your character, why
          > should
          > we have to add the further qualification of whether there is some "other"
          > in
          > the mix??
          >
          > You are adding all sorts of qualifications without explaining how these
          > matter.
          >
          > eduard
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Mary
          > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:10 PM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] significant difference
          >
          > The existentialist proof for whether someone is acting authentically is
          > whether they acknowledge intersubjectivity. An authentically evil person
          > is
          > responsible for whom? To what is he committed other than acting at the
          > expense of others' freedom. To attribute the isolated concepts of
          > authenticity, freedom, and responsibility to an evil person is to ignore
          > whether these concepts are merged within that person and whether that
          > person
          > values them enough to respect them in others.
          >
          > 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
        • eduardathome
          [First one must become a conscious, well-knit, individualised being, who exists in himself, by himself, independently of all his surroundings, who can hear
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 11, 2013
            [First one must become a conscious, well-knit, individualised being, who
            exists in himself, by himself, independently of all his surroundings,
            who can hear anything, read anything, see anything without changing. He
            receives from outside only what he wants to receive; he automatically
            refuses all that is not in conformity with his plan and nothing can
            leave an imprint on him unless he agrees to receive the imprint. Then
            one begins to become an individuality!]

            Nothing new there. That is what a mature person does ... avoids being
            carrying away by distractions ... and focusing on what is important.

            However, it is also a recipe for a self-indulged isolated hermit, which is
            not a good path to undertake.

            eduard

            -----Original Message-----
            From: devindersingh
            Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:16 PM
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [existlist] Re: significant difference

            Do you know what it means to be completely individualised? Capable of
            resisting all outer influences?...at least ninety-nine parts of an
            individual's character are made of soft butter – inedible of
            course... but on which if one presses one's thumb, an imprint is made.
            Now, everything is a "thumb": an expressed thought, a sentence read, an
            object looked at, an observation of what someone else does, and of one's
            neighbour's will. And all these wills... you know, when one sees them
            they are all there, like this, inter- mingled, each one trying to get
            the uppermost and causing a kind of perpetual conflict within,
            outside... It goes in and out of people like that, you see, like
            electric currents. One is not at all aware of all this, and it is a
            perpetual conflict of all the wills which are trying to express
            themselves; and the strongest one will succeed. But as there are many of
            these and as one has to fight alone against a great number, it is not
            easy.


            So one is tossed like a cork on the waves of the sea... One day one
            wants this, the next day one wants that, at one moment one is pushed
            from this side, at another from that, now one lifts one's face to the
            sky, now one is sunk deep in a hole. And so this is the existence one
            has!

            First one must become a conscious, well-knit, individualised being, who
            exists in himself, by himself, independently of all his surroundings,
            who can hear anything, read anything, see anything without changing. He
            receives from outside only what he wants to receive; he automatically
            refuses all that is not in conformity with his plan and nothing can
            leave an imprint on him unless he agrees to receive the imprint. Then
            one begins to become an individuality!

            inance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/553

            http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/3057
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
            >
            > But eduard what you've just now espoused is radical individualism, and
            it conflicts with what wrote you wrote previously: "I am not advocating
            radical individualism. There are shared ideas and also ideas which may
            differ between individuals and for which there may be disagreement. In a
            civilized society we try to deal with our disagreements." I don't
            understand your concern with the authenticity of evil. What is society
            except others? Authenticity is a relationship not only with yourself but
            with others. Together with freedom and responsibility they are
            existentialist touchstones. Evil matters, but not because it's
            authentic.
            >
            > Mary
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
            > >
            > > Why??
            > >
            > > Why should we have to consider whether the authentically evil person
            is
            > > responsible for someone else?? What has the "other" got to do with
            > > anything?? You are authentic if you act as you think or believe.
            Simple.
            > > Period. If you are inclined to evil and it is in your character, why
            should
            > > we have to add the further qualification of whether there is some
            "other" in
            > > the mix??
            > >
            > > You are adding all sorts of qualifications without explaining how
            these
            > > matter.
            > >
            > > eduard
            > >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: Mary
            > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:10 PM
            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [existlist] significant difference
            > >
            > > The existentialist proof for whether someone is acting authentically
            is
            > > whether they acknowledge intersubjectivity. An authentically evil
            person is
            > > responsible for whom? To what is he committed other than acting at
            the
            > > expense of others' freedom. To attribute the isolated concepts of
            > > authenticity, freedom, and responsibility to an evil person is to
            ignore
            > > whether these concepts are merged within that person and whether
            that person
            > > values them enough to respect them in others.
            > >
            > > Mary



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

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

            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
          • devindersingh
            What came out existed already there essentially within what was. It is nothing but the quickening of the seed, the growth of the embryo and the birth out of
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 12, 2013
              What came out existed already there essentially within what was. It is nothing but the quickening of the seed, the growth of the embryo and the birth out of the womb: Life was imbedded in Matter, Mind was imbedded in Life and therefore in Matter. Thus evolution is merely self-manifestation, the urge to bring out step by step all the degrees of potency involved in the being. The force of evolution is selective and directive, as has been pointed out by Julian Huxley.
              With man came also the sense of what is beyond man, the superman, the divine man, the Divine. That is the true meaning of his appearance, that is the characteristic turn of consciousness which he brought with him. This self-consciousness, an inner perception and aspiration that he is to be something else, something other and greater than what he is, means the emergence of a spiritual soul in the world of matter. This prophetic or forward-looking consciousness is absent in the sub-human creation, although, as I have said, a secret blind unknowing forward urge has always been there as the original motive of all functioning in things and creatures upon earth.
              [Existentialists]assert even now that to be ignorant is human: to be born, to live and to decay and die – sasyam iva pacyate sasyam iva jayate punah – that is the inevitable course of earthly life. If you want to be superhuman, you must get beyond the human frame altogether, 'not here, not here, but elsewhere'. That has been the burden more or less of all religions, all spiritual attempts and achievements so far.
              We, have said that this does not seen to lead to the right solution of the riddle, for it means merely a by-passing, an escape. The true solution must concern itself with here and now. And we have also said that the earth and human life are inevitably moving towards that solution, for it is that solution which the evolutionary urge is carrying within itself to offer to earth and human life, viz., to establish the Divine in the human frame, to incarnate the spirit-life in the manifest form of the earthly body.
              ...the red seed of the French Revolution was planted the very day when the Valois autocrat declared his divine right of kingship. In Russia, Lenin's antithesis was posited along with Peter the Great's thesis.
              ...the New Being, the Superman, will be born, whether breaking the mould that humanity is or reshaping it into the new pattern.
              [http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobindoAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-46_The%20Evolutionary%20Imperative.htm]
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
              >
              > [First one must become a conscious, well-knit, individualised being, who
              > exists in himself, by himself, independently of all his surroundings,
              > who can hear anything, read anything, see anything without changing. He
              > receives from outside only what he wants to receive; he automatically
              > refuses all that is not in conformity with his plan and nothing can
              > leave an imprint on him unless he agrees to receive the imprint. Then
              > one begins to become an individuality!]
              >
              > Nothing new there. That is what a mature person does ... avoids being
              > carrying away by distractions ... and focusing on what is important.
              >
              > However, it is also a recipe for a self-indulged isolated hermit, which is
              > not a good path to undertake.
              >
              > eduard
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: devindersingh
              > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:16 PM
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: significant difference
              >
              > Do you know what it means to be completely individualised? Capable of
              > resisting all outer influences?...at least ninety-nine parts of an
              > individual's character are made of soft butter â€" inedible of
              > course... but on which if one presses one's thumb, an imprint is made.
              > Now, everything is a "thumb": an expressed thought, a sentence read, an
              > object looked at, an observation of what someone else does, and of one's
              > neighbour's will. And all these wills... you know, when one sees them
              > they are all there, like this, inter- mingled, each one trying to get
              > the uppermost and causing a kind of perpetual conflict within,
              > outside... It goes in and out of people like that, you see, like
              > electric currents. One is not at all aware of all this, and it is a
              > perpetual conflict of all the wills which are trying to express
              > themselves; and the strongest one will succeed. But as there are many of
              > these and as one has to fight alone against a great number, it is not
              > easy.
              > So one is tossed like a cork on the waves of the sea... One day one
              > wants this, the next day one wants that, at one moment one is pushed
              > from this side, at another from that, now one lifts one's face to the
              > sky, now one is sunk deep in a hole. And so this is the existence one
              > has!
              > First one must become a conscious, well-knit, individualised being, who
              > exists in himself, by himself, independently of all his surroundings,
              > who can hear anything, read anything, see anything without changing. He
              > receives from outside only what he wants to receive; he automatically
              > refuses all that is not in conformity with his plan and nothing can
              > leave an imprint on him unless he agrees to receive the imprint. Then
              > one begins to become an individuality!
              >
              > http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/553
              >
              > http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/3057
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:
              > >
              > > But eduard what you've just now espoused is radical individualism, and
              > it conflicts with what wrote you wrote previously: "I am not advocating
              > radical individualism. There are shared ideas and also ideas which may
              > differ between individuals and for which there may be disagreement. In a
              > civilized society we try to deal with our disagreements." I don't
              > understand your concern with the authenticity of evil. What is society
              > except others? Authenticity is a relationship not only with yourself but
              > with others. Together with freedom and responsibility they are
              > existentialist touchstones. Evil matters, but not because it's
              > authentic.
              > >
              > > Mary
            • eduardathome
              [... to establish the Divine in the human frame, to incarnate the spirit-life in the manifest form of the earthly body.] I have no doubt that humans will
              Message 6 of 9 , Feb 12, 2013
                [... to establish the Divine in the human frame, to incarnate the
                spirit-life in the manifest form of the earthly body.]

                I have no doubt that humans will evolve further .... largely of their own
                making. But I seriously doubt that one could say it is a matter of putting
                the divine into the human body.

                What is this "divine"?? Are you saying that humans would evolve to become
                gods. I should think that there would be big trouble with an earth full of
                say 10 billion gods.

                eduard


                -----Original Message-----
                From: devindersingh
                Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:06 AM
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [existlist] Re: significant difference

                What came out existed already there essentially within what was. It is
                nothing but the quickening of the seed, the growth of the embryo and the
                birth out of the womb: Life was imbedded in Matter, Mind was imbedded in
                Life and therefore in Matter. Thus evolution is merely self-manifestation,
                the urge to bring out step by step all the degrees of potency involved in
                the being. The force of evolution is selective and directive, as has been
                pointed out by Julian Huxley.

                With man came also the sense of what is beyond man, the superman, the divine
                man, the Divine. That is the true meaning of his appearance, that is the
                characteristic turn of consciousness which he brought with him. This
                self-consciousness, an inner perception and aspiration that he is to be
                something else, something other and greater than what he is, means the
                emergence of a spiritual soul in the world of matter. This prophetic or
                forward-looking consciousness is absent in the sub-human creation, although,
                as I have said, a secret blind unknowing forward urge has always been there
                as the original motive of all functioning in things and creatures upon
                earth.

                [Existentialists]assert even now that to be ignorant is human: to be born,
                to live and to decay and die – sasyam iva pacyate sasyam iva jayate punah –
                that is the inevitable course of earthly life. If you want to be superhuman,
                you must get beyond the human frame altogether, 'not here, not here, but
                elsewhere'. That has been the burden more or less of all religions, all
                spiritual attempts and achievements so far.

                We, have said that this does not seen to lead to the right solution of the
                riddle, for it means merely a by-passing, an escape. The true solution must
                concern itself with here and now. And we have also said that the earth and
                human life are inevitably moving towards that solution, for it is that
                solution which the evolutionary urge is carrying within itself to offer to
                earth and human life, viz., to establish the Divine in the human frame, to
                incarnate the spirit-life in the manifest form of the earthly body.

                ...the red seed of the French Revolution was planted the very day when the
                Valois autocrat declared his divine right of kingship. In Russia, Lenin's
                antithesis was posited along with Peter the Great's thesis.

                ...the New Being, the Superman, will be born, whether breaking the mould
                that humanity is or reshaping it into the new pattern.

                [http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobindoAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-46_The%20Evolutionary%20Imperative.htm]
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                >
                > [First one must become a conscious, well-knit, individualised being, who
                > exists in himself, by himself, independently of all his surroundings,
                > who can hear anything, read anything, see anything without changing. He
                > receives from outside only what he wants to receive; he automatically
                > refuses all that is not in conformity with his plan and nothing can
                > leave an imprint on him unless he agrees to receive the imprint. Then
                > one begins to become an individuality!]
                >
                > Nothing new there. That is what a mature person does ... avoids being
                > carrying away by distractions ... and focusing on what is important.
                >
                > However, it is also a recipe for a self-indulged isolated hermit, which is
                > not a good path to undertake.
                >
                > eduard
              • devindersingh
                GOD you do not find? No God – not at all? But why should He be found? And to own Him, what right have you? How much of yourself have you offered to Him?
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 12, 2013
                  GOD you do not find? No God – not at all? But why should He be found? And to own Him, what right have you? How much of yourself have you offered to Him? Every moment, every limb of yours, how far have you consecrated?
                  Your call is merely lip-deep. You have called on Him in a slight difficulty or out of sheer curiosity, and forthwith is He to appear before you in person?
                  Perhaps He does come down. But where is your eye to see?
                  Seated in an abysmal, pitch-dark cave, tightly closing your eyes in addition, you cry out in a fit of restive passion and with a stupendous laugh of disdain "Where is the Sun, where is the lamp of Phoebus? No Sun, none."
                  No question of freedom for one who is subdued and trampled under the feet of others. If one really wants to have a glimpse of freedom, it is not possible through mere ire, spite, disbelief, despair or at easy ease. Fitness for freedom has to be acquired. The essential requisite is yoga, arduous yoga.
                  Fear not – the first step towards freedom is the consciousness of and revolt against subjection. If the ordinary life of the world is felt as the domain of a Non-God – if there be a God He cannot remain inside the wheel of this creation – if there be a Lord of this world-machine, then He must be a satanic god, a crippled god – this is the first realisation.
                  Whenever you say, "Where is God? Where is He? Nowhere," that shows the commencement of your soul's awakening, however insignificant it may be. For you feel a sense of want and dissatisfaction in everything including God.
                  Your denial of God is the first step towards God-realisation. One who finds fulfilment in the ordinary life and is content with and enamoured of it, one who needs nothing over and above life, is no better than a tree, a stone, an animal, a gorilla or a chimpanzee.
                  Sulking, spite, denial, disrespect, constitute the first step. The second step is a calm expectation, a persistent faith, one-pointed love and devotion and a complete reliance.
                  [http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobindoAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-35_Where%20is%20God.htm]
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                  >
                  > [... to establish the Divine in the human frame, to incarnate the
                  > spirit-life in the manifest form of the earthly body.]
                  >
                  > I have no doubt that humans will evolve further .... largely of their own
                  > making. But I seriously doubt that one could say it is a matter of putting
                  > the divine into the human body.
                  >
                  > What is this "divine"?? Are you saying that humans would evolve to become
                  > gods. I should think that there would be big trouble with an earth full of
                  > say 10 billion gods.
                  >
                  > eduard

                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: devindersingh
                  > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:06 AM
                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [existlist] Re: significant difference
                  >
                  > What came out existed already there essentially within what was. It is
                  > nothing but the quickening of the seed, the growth of the embryo and the
                  > birth out of the womb: Life was imbedded in Matter, Mind was imbedded in
                  > Life and therefore in Matter. Thus evolution is merely self-manifestation,
                  > the urge to bring out step by step all the degrees of potency involved in
                  > the being. The force of evolution is selective and directive, as has been
                  > pointed out by Julian Huxley.
                  >
                  > With man came also the sense of what is beyond man, the superman, the divine
                  > man, the Divine. That is the true meaning of his appearance, that is the
                  > characteristic turn of consciousness which he brought with him. This
                  > self-consciousness, an inner perception and aspiration that he is to be
                  > something else, something other and greater than what he is, means the
                  > emergence of a spiritual soul in the world of matter. This prophetic or
                  > forward-looking consciousness is absent in the sub-human creation, although,
                  > as I have said, a secret blind unknowing forward urge has always been there
                  > as the original motive of all functioning in things and creatures upon
                  > earth.
                  >
                  > [Existentialists]assert even now that to be ignorant is human: to be born,
                  > to live and to decay and die â€" sasyam iva pacyate sasyam iva jayate punah â€"
                  > that is the inevitable course of earthly life. If you want to be superhuman,
                  > you must get beyond the human frame altogether, 'not here, not here, but
                  > elsewhere'. That has been the burden more or less of all religions, all
                  > spiritual attempts and achievements so far.
                  >
                  > We, have said that this does not seen to lead to the right solution of the
                  > riddle, for it means merely a by-passing, an escape. The true solution must
                  > concern itself with here and now. And we have also said that the earth and
                  > human life are inevitably moving towards that solution, for it is that
                  > solution which the evolutionary urge is carrying within itself to offer to
                  > earth and human life, viz., to establish the Divine in the human frame, to
                  > incarnate the spirit-life in the manifest form of the earthly body.
                  >
                  > ...the red seed of the French Revolution was planted the very day when the
                  > Valois autocrat declared his divine right of kingship. In Russia, Lenin's
                  > antithesis was posited along with Peter the Great's thesis.
                  >
                  > ...the New Being, the Superman, will be born, whether breaking the mould
                  > that humanity is or reshaping it into the new pattern.
                  >
                  > [http://sriaurobindoashram.com/Content.aspx?ContentURL=_StaticContent/SriAurobindoAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Nolini%20Kanta%20Gupta/Volume-7/-46_The%20Evolutionary%20Imperative.htm]
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                  > >
                  > > [First one must become a conscious, well-knit, individualised being, who
                  > > exists in himself, by himself, independently of all his surroundings,
                  > > who can hear anything, read anything, see anything without changing. He
                  > > receives from outside only what he wants to receive; he automatically
                  > > refuses all that is not in conformity with his plan and nothing can
                  > > leave an imprint on him unless he agrees to receive the imprint. Then
                  > > one begins to become an individuality!]
                  > >
                  > > Nothing new there. That is what a mature person does ... avoids being
                  > > carrying away by distractions ... and focusing on what is important.
                  > >
                  > > However, it is also a recipe for a self-indulged isolated hermit, which is
                  > > not a good path to undertake.
                  > >
                  > > eduard
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.