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

non-duality and existentialism

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    h. I detected some Zen in your selection from Anonymous about the absurd being an awakening (#59418) but let it go, because I didn t want to assume too much
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      h.

      I detected some "Zen" in your selection from Anonymous about the absurd being an awakening (#59418) but let it go, because I didn't want to assume too much :) Camus' philosophy or logic of the absurd has some superficial aspects in common with it but differs significantly in regards to attachment, transience, and hope.

      I don't subscribe to either duality or non-duality but rather a perspective gleaned from Hegel: identity in difference, unity in difference. Object and subject, as well as almost every other opposition is not merged or transcended but considered a dialectical dynamic within whole.

      No, I don't think existentialism (which Camus rejected) and non-duality are compatible except in the sense of a marriage: difference, when playful, remains. Some have attempted to draw analogies between non-duality and Heidegger and Sartre. Do you have some similar ideas, since I don't remember what they were.

      According to labels and philosophical schools there are significant differences between a non-dualist without dogma, a spiritual persona sans god, and an ethical atheist. In our everyday experiences I suspect the differences are minor and might revolve around whether one chooses political activism or letting others choose for them, a more solitary lifestyle versus one of solidarity.

      Existentialism might appear to emphasize the individual at the expense of community, seriousness at the expense of playfulness, and thinking to the exclusion of experience, but these more likely concern personality. Here again, we resonate more with specific writers than with others.

      You claimed we don't live concepts (philosophical? scientific?), but some do factor them in making decisions.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "existlist" <hermitcrab65@...> wrote:

      >I've always enjoyed Camus/Absurdity and could relate a little to some of what Nietzsche had to say. I think I've moved forevermore into the nonduality club, eastern thought sans dogma. I wonder if existentialism and nonduality make a good marriage.
      >
    • William
      ... Jim, I too have been listening to discussions of conspiracy theorys. I write this because of the threat I see emerging to individual thought. The cop who
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 28, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        >
        > I've enjoyed reading the recent exchange between Bill, Mary and h on the question of what existentialism is and what its significance is in the twenty-first century.
        >
        > I agree with Mary that an existentialist must have some sort of connection with at least one of the main existentialist writers – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus – or with some of the ideas which have been passed on by or from these great writers.
        >
        > For me what distinguishes existentialism from other philosophical movements is its emphasis on the fact that the individual is fundamentally alone in the world and is responsible for her actions and commitments and what she makes of her life. There is a distance between each of us as we are all different, with different thoughts, feelings, values and commitments.
        >
        > As Bill emphasizes existentialism is opposed to group-think such as organised religion or other forms of indoctrination from above.
        >
        > I attended a very interesting talk on Monday by someone called Jovan Byford who was talking about the question of the difference between real conspiracies and the sorts of conspiracy theories which are false.
        >
        > He gave what he thought were examples of real conspiracies – Watergate, the FBI infiltration of the Us Civil Rights Movement, and the Goldman Sachs conspiracy to disadvantage small investors in the interests of large investors. His main example of a false conspiracy theory was the theory that 9-11 was an inside job by the US Government.
        >
        > He said a mark of a genuine conspiracy was that it was localised in time and reach with a small number of conspirators, whereas the false conspiracy theories tended to be grand-scale linking various events over time and location. In fact conspiracy theorists tended to believe that a grand conspiracy run by a powerful secret elite has been running the world for centuries. The elite are often portrayed as of Jewish origin, although the more extreme theories may involve some type of alien life.
        >
        > Conspiracy theories emerged in Europe – the first concerning a secret elite that orchestrated the French Revolution of 1789 – although today most conspiracy theories emerge in the US where there is a general distrust of the US Government and most US conspiracy theorists think the US Government is run or manipulated by the secret elite.
        >
        > Why do I write all this?
        >
        > Well because it struck me after listening to the talk that the growing belief in conspiracy theories was a new sort of religion, with the mind-set of the `believers' very similar to the mind-set of religious believers. The faithful have gained access to a new truth whilst the non-believers are to be pitied for their naivety in believing the official stories. Further everything that happens can be fitted into their belief system such that once a person succumbs to conspiracy theory they rarely give up their conspiracy beliefs.
        >
        > In my view conspiracy theory is the new religion of the twenty-first century. Hopefully existentialists have the critical faculties and individual strength to resist this new form of religious belief.
        >
        > Jim
        >
        Jim, I too have been listening to discussions of conspiracy theorys. I write this because of the threat I see emerging to individual thought. The cop who wants to cook and eat women is the center of this circus and he is being accused of thought crime. Now I think he is quite deranged but he made no overt acts toward anyone and is being prosecuted for his conversations with others. This kind of witch hunt goes beyond the normal prosecutorial bounds and I hope it is squelched post haste.
        I have read so many conspiricy theories and find time is often the cure. Keeping an open mind during the often prolonged span of questioning is the key. I find most are not concluded and avoiding belief becomes the proper course. In so many cases there are not sufficent facts available so the theories go in the unsolved bin. As soon as you accept belief you risk religion. It is just bad thinking that is often accompanied by bigotry or greed.
        Good to hear from you. Bill
      • Mary
        Bill, Jim, h... I think another characteristic which also fits the conspiracy believer is that strange combination of cynicism, incredulity, and naivete. Also
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 28, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Bill, Jim, h...

          I think another characteristic which also fits the conspiracy believer is that strange combination of cynicism, incredulity, and naivete. Also perhaps the need to belong to something greater than themselves alone. It's a blend of thinking governments and the wealthiest control history and that no one person or small group can plan such tragedies, so there has to be some eternal plot to ruin everyone else. I'm not saying there are no conspiracies, because obviously there are. Here again it's another way of an individual seeking a large group to avoid controlling their own destiny by making decisions without that kind of certainty, a way to avoid action. Many conspiracy buffs are apathetic towards creating change but very active in their new 'religion'.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I've enjoyed reading the recent exchange between Bill, Mary and h on the question of what existentialism is and what its significance is in the twenty-first century.
          > >
          > > I agree with Mary that an existentialist must have some sort of connection with at least one of the main existentialist writers – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus – or with some of the ideas which have been passed on by or from these great writers.
          > >
          > > For me what distinguishes existentialism from other philosophical movements is its emphasis on the fact that the individual is fundamentally alone in the world and is responsible for her actions and commitments and what she makes of her life. There is a distance between each of us as we are all different, with different thoughts, feelings, values and commitments.
          > >
          > > As Bill emphasizes existentialism is opposed to group-think such as organised religion or other forms of indoctrination from above.
          > >
          > > I attended a very interesting talk on Monday by someone called Jovan Byford who was talking about the question of the difference between real conspiracies and the sorts of conspiracy theories which are false.
          > >
          > > He gave what he thought were examples of real conspiracies – Watergate, the FBI infiltration of the Us Civil Rights Movement, and the Goldman Sachs conspiracy to disadvantage small investors in the interests of large investors. His main example of a false conspiracy theory was the theory that 9-11 was an inside job by the US Government.
          > >
          > > He said a mark of a genuine conspiracy was that it was localised in time and reach with a small number of conspirators, whereas the false conspiracy theories tended to be grand-scale linking various events over time and location. In fact conspiracy theorists tended to believe that a grand conspiracy run by a powerful secret elite has been running the world for centuries. The elite are often portrayed as of Jewish origin, although the more extreme theories may involve some type of alien life.
          > >
          > > Conspiracy theories emerged in Europe – the first concerning a secret elite that orchestrated the French Revolution of 1789 – although today most conspiracy theories emerge in the US where there is a general distrust of the US Government and most US conspiracy theorists think the US Government is run or manipulated by the secret elite.
          > >
          > > Why do I write all this?
          > >
          > > Well because it struck me after listening to the talk that the growing belief in conspiracy theories was a new sort of religion, with the mind-set of the `believers' very similar to the mind-set of religious believers. The faithful have gained access to a new truth whilst the non-believers are to be pitied for their naivety in believing the official stories. Further everything that happens can be fitted into their belief system such that once a person succumbs to conspiracy theory they rarely give up their conspiracy beliefs.
          > >
          > > In my view conspiracy theory is the new religion of the twenty-first century. Hopefully existentialists have the critical faculties and individual strength to resist this new form of religious belief.
          > >
          > > Jim
          > >
          > Jim, I too have been listening to discussions of conspiracy theorys. I write this because of the threat I see emerging to individual thought. The cop who wants to cook and eat women is the center of this circus and he is being accused of thought crime. Now I think he is quite deranged but he made no overt acts toward anyone and is being prosecuted for his conversations with others. This kind of witch hunt goes beyond the normal prosecutorial bounds and I hope it is squelched post haste.
          > I have read so many conspiricy theories and find time is often the cure. Keeping an open mind during the often prolonged span of questioning is the key. I find most are not concluded and avoiding belief becomes the proper course. In so many cases there are not sufficent facts available so the theories go in the unsolved bin. As soon as you accept belief you risk religion. It is just bad thinking that is often accompanied by bigotry or greed.
          > Good to hear from you. Bill
          >
        • William
          ... I tried for cause organisations such as the NRA and ACLU. I have quit all of them as I see them become single minded and obsessed. The collectivists
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 28, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
            >
            > Bill, Jim, h...
            >
            > I think another characteristic which also fits the conspiracy believer is that strange combination of cynicism, incredulity, and naivete. Also perhaps the need to belong to something greater than themselves alone. It's a blend of thinking governments and the wealthiest control history and that no one person or small group can plan such tragedies, so there has to be some eternal plot to ruin everyone else. I'm not saying there are no conspiracies, because obviously there are. Here again it's another way of an individual seeking a large group to avoid controlling their own destiny by making decisions without that kind of certainty, a way to avoid action. Many conspiracy buffs are apathetic towards creating change but very active in their new 'religion'.
            >
            > Mary
            > Mary, I have often written about the difference between individualists and collectivists. Some people are joiners and some are loners. I think existentialists are much more apt to be loners. I know I am an individualist. I am happy to say I just dumped three of my long time associations. I will not mention their names as I do not want to give them the publicity.
            I tried " for cause" organisations such as the NRA and ACLU. I have quit all of them as I see them become single minded and obsessed. The collectivists continually find causes to band togeather . When ever someons pulls out Roberts Rules of Order,I quit, I leave. I think such joiners are cheap power troopers. They do not want any skin in the game but they want their egos stroked.
            I learned these things from inside organisations that I was forced to join. I will not list them but I belong to none of them now. I still like many people and respect my friends . Joining up for single issues often morphs into horror shows. Just look at AARP. Bill
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I've enjoyed reading the recent exchange between Bill, Mary and h on the question of what existentialism is and what its significance is in the twenty-first century.
            > > >
            > > > I agree with Mary that an existentialist must have some sort of connection with at least one of the main existentialist writers – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus – or with some of the ideas which have been passed on by or from these great writers.
            > > >
            > > > For me what distinguishes existentialism from other philosophical movements is its emphasis on the fact that the individual is fundamentally alone in the world and is responsible for her actions and commitments and what she makes of her life. There is a distance between each of us as we are all different, with different thoughts, feelings, values and commitments.
            > > >
            > > > As Bill emphasizes existentialism is opposed to group-think such as organised religion or other forms of indoctrination from above.
            > > >
            > > > I attended a very interesting talk on Monday by someone called Jovan Byford who was talking about the question of the difference between real conspiracies and the sorts of conspiracy theories which are false.
            > > >
            > > > He gave what he thought were examples of real conspiracies – Watergate, the FBI infiltration of the Us Civil Rights Movement, and the Goldman Sachs conspiracy to disadvantage small investors in the interests of large investors. His main example of a false conspiracy theory was the theory that 9-11 was an inside job by the US Government.
            > > >
            > > > He said a mark of a genuine conspiracy was that it was localised in time and reach with a small number of conspirators, whereas the false conspiracy theories tended to be grand-scale linking various events over time and location. In fact conspiracy theorists tended to believe that a grand conspiracy run by a powerful secret elite has been running the world for centuries. The elite are often portrayed as of Jewish origin, although the more extreme theories may involve some type of alien life.
            > > >
            > > > Conspiracy theories emerged in Europe – the first concerning a secret elite that orchestrated the French Revolution of 1789 – although today most conspiracy theories emerge in the US where there is a general distrust of the US Government and most US conspiracy theorists think the US Government is run or manipulated by the secret elite.
            > > >
            > > > Why do I write all this?
            > > >
            > > > Well because it struck me after listening to the talk that the growing belief in conspiracy theories was a new sort of religion, with the mind-set of the `believers' very similar to the mind-set of religious believers. The faithful have gained access to a new truth whilst the non-believers are to be pitied for their naivety in believing the official stories. Further everything that happens can be fitted into their belief system such that once a person succumbs to conspiracy theory they rarely give up their conspiracy beliefs.
            > > >
            > > > In my view conspiracy theory is the new religion of the twenty-first century. Hopefully existentialists have the critical faculties and individual strength to resist this new form of religious belief.
            > > >
            > > > Jim
            > > >
            > > Jim, I too have been listening to discussions of conspiracy theorys. I write this because of the threat I see emerging to individual thought. The cop who wants to cook and eat women is the center of this circus and he is being accused of thought crime. Now I think he is quite deranged but he made no overt acts toward anyone and is being prosecuted for his conversations with others. This kind of witch hunt goes beyond the normal prosecutorial bounds and I hope it is squelched post haste.
            > > I have read so many conspiricy theories and find time is often the cure. Keeping an open mind during the often prolonged span of questioning is the key. I find most are not concluded and avoiding belief becomes the proper course. In so many cases there are not sufficent facts available so the theories go in the unsolved bin. As soon as you accept belief you risk religion. It is just bad thinking that is often accompanied by bigotry or greed.
            > > Good to hear from you. Bill
            > >
            >
          • existlist
            ... === Yeah, I use concepts (all kinds) all the time to function in the world but the mind can get too cluttered with comparing and contrasting, judging,
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 28, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
              > You claimed we don't live concepts (philosophical? scientific?), but some do factor them in making decisions.

              ===

              Yeah, I use concepts (all kinds) all the time to function in the world but the mind can get too cluttered with comparing and contrasting, judging, remembering, planning, etc. and when the mind is quiet, it's easy to see how unnecessary all of it is to just being alive. But I can't do that all the time (i get bored) and I do seek out stimulation to do some more thinking or I wouldn't be here on Existlist, now would I?

              Thanks for your long explanatory email.

              h.
            • Mary
              Bill, I support causes I agree with but not by joining organizations or by giving money. I do so at the risk of my individualism but for the sake of my
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 1 9:46 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Bill,

                I support causes I agree with but not by joining organizations or by giving money. I do so at the risk of my individualism but for the sake of my authenticity. I petition, vote, and speak out wherever allowed. I'm ecstatic the House passed the expanded VAWA, and I don't feel this kind of activism violates my existentialist perspective. I let my representatives know who and what they need to represent; some need to be prevented from regaining office.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Bill, Jim, h...
                > >
                > > I think another characteristic which also fits the conspiracy believer is that strange combination of cynicism, incredulity, and naivete. Also perhaps the need to belong to something greater than themselves alone. It's a blend of thinking governments and the wealthiest control history and that no one person or small group can plan such tragedies, so there has to be some eternal plot to ruin everyone else. I'm not saying there are no conspiracies, because obviously there are. Here again it's another way of an individual seeking a large group to avoid controlling their own destiny by making decisions without that kind of certainty, a way to avoid action. Many conspiracy buffs are apathetic towards creating change but very active in their new 'religion'.
                > >
                > > Mary
                > > Mary, I have often written about the difference between individualists and collectivists. Some people are joiners and some are loners. I think existentialists are much more apt to be loners. I know I am an individualist. I am happy to say I just dumped three of my long time associations. I will not mention their names as I do not want to give them the publicity.
                > I tried " for cause" organisations such as the NRA and ACLU. I have quit all of them as I see them become single minded and obsessed. The collectivists continually find causes to band togeather . When ever someons pulls out Roberts Rules of Order,I quit, I leave. I think such joiners are cheap power troopers. They do not want any skin in the game but they want their egos stroked.
                > I learned these things from inside organisations that I was forced to join. I will not list them but I belong to none of them now. I still like many people and respect my friends . Joining up for single issues often morphs into horror shows. Just look at AARP. Bill
                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > I've enjoyed reading the recent exchange between Bill, Mary and h on the question of what existentialism is and what its significance is in the twenty-first century.
                > > > >
                > > > > I agree with Mary that an existentialist must have some sort of connection with at least one of the main existentialist writers – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus – or with some of the ideas which have been passed on by or from these great writers.
                > > > >
                > > > > For me what distinguishes existentialism from other philosophical movements is its emphasis on the fact that the individual is fundamentally alone in the world and is responsible for her actions and commitments and what she makes of her life. There is a distance between each of us as we are all different, with different thoughts, feelings, values and commitments.
                > > > >
                > > > > As Bill emphasizes existentialism is opposed to group-think such as organised religion or other forms of indoctrination from above.
                > > > >
                > > > > I attended a very interesting talk on Monday by someone called Jovan Byford who was talking about the question of the difference between real conspiracies and the sorts of conspiracy theories which are false.
                > > > >
                > > > > He gave what he thought were examples of real conspiracies – Watergate, the FBI infiltration of the Us Civil Rights Movement, and the Goldman Sachs conspiracy to disadvantage small investors in the interests of large investors. His main example of a false conspiracy theory was the theory that 9-11 was an inside job by the US Government.
                > > > >
                > > > > He said a mark of a genuine conspiracy was that it was localised in time and reach with a small number of conspirators, whereas the false conspiracy theories tended to be grand-scale linking various events over time and location. In fact conspiracy theorists tended to believe that a grand conspiracy run by a powerful secret elite has been running the world for centuries. The elite are often portrayed as of Jewish origin, although the more extreme theories may involve some type of alien life.
                > > > >
                > > > > Conspiracy theories emerged in Europe – the first concerning a secret elite that orchestrated the French Revolution of 1789 – although today most conspiracy theories emerge in the US where there is a general distrust of the US Government and most US conspiracy theorists think the US Government is run or manipulated by the secret elite.
                > > > >
                > > > > Why do I write all this?
                > > > >
                > > > > Well because it struck me after listening to the talk that the growing belief in conspiracy theories was a new sort of religion, with the mind-set of the `believers' very similar to the mind-set of religious believers. The faithful have gained access to a new truth whilst the non-believers are to be pitied for their naivety in believing the official stories. Further everything that happens can be fitted into their belief system such that once a person succumbs to conspiracy theory they rarely give up their conspiracy beliefs.
                > > > >
                > > > > In my view conspiracy theory is the new religion of the twenty-first century. Hopefully existentialists have the critical faculties and individual strength to resist this new form of religious belief.
                > > > >
                > > > > Jim
                > > > >
                > > > Jim, I too have been listening to discussions of conspiracy theorys. I write this because of the threat I see emerging to individual thought. The cop who wants to cook and eat women is the center of this circus and he is being accused of thought crime. Now I think he is quite deranged but he made no overt acts toward anyone and is being prosecuted for his conversations with others. This kind of witch hunt goes beyond the normal prosecutorial bounds and I hope it is squelched post haste.
                > > > I have read so many conspiricy theories and find time is often the cure. Keeping an open mind during the often prolonged span of questioning is the key. I find most are not concluded and avoiding belief becomes the proper course. In so many cases there are not sufficent facts available so the theories go in the unsolved bin. As soon as you accept belief you risk religion. It is just bad thinking that is often accompanied by bigotry or greed.
                > > > Good to hear from you. Bill
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • William
                ... The sequestration will go down but the fight over money in the congress will always be with us. I listened to Obama speak about the effects of the cuts.
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 1 10:48 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Bill,
                  >
                  > I support causes I agree with but not by joining organizations or by giving money. I do so at the risk of my individualism but for the sake of my authenticity. I petition, vote, and speak out wherever allowed. I'm ecstatic the House passed the expanded VAWA, and I don't feel this kind of activism violates my existentialist perspective. I let my representatives know who and what they need to represent; some need to be prevented from regaining office.
                  >
                  > Mary
                  >Mary, I was happy to see the vawa act passed but did not speak out for it. It was not my issue and I do not go out looking for fights that do not directly affect me. I have learned from bitter experience that the other side will take steps to punish you for affiliations that oppose them.
                  The sequestration will go down but the fight over money in the congress will always be with us. I listened to Obama speak about the effects of the cuts. He is setting the republicans up for the blame and that seems good politics.
                  The pope took a powder and we probably will never know why.In a closed organistion like the catholic church conspiracy theories abound. I am beginning to join those who demand transparency. I actually think most people are smart enough to make decisions if they can get applicaple facts. I now have suspicion of entities that purposfully hide facts and obfuscate. I am not saying you can`t put out your version of a situation but if you hide pertanent facts or twist them I now equate that with guilt and throw my opinion to the other side. I see a general movement toward transparancy and think that may be the way to attack the ol boys networks that used to hide out in smoke filled rooms.Attack the old political systems on openness and atrocities of ancient pedophiles who protect illegal behavours will vanish. I certainly do not want to join a conspiracy group and start a new religion to affront Rome. Forcing the truth into the light will allow people to decide if they want to be a part of loathsome acts.Eventually this will come down to battles about privacy and the publics need to know. I will now lean more toward openness as I used to defend privacy to a great extent. Bill
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Bill, Jim, h...
                  > > >
                  > > > I think another characteristic which also fits the conspiracy believer is that strange combination of cynicism, incredulity, and naivete. Also perhaps the need to belong to something greater than themselves alone. It's a blend of thinking governments and the wealthiest control history and that no one person or small group can plan such tragedies, so there has to be some eternal plot to ruin everyone else. I'm not saying there are no conspiracies, because obviously there are. Here again it's another way of an individual seeking a large group to avoid controlling their own destiny by making decisions without that kind of certainty, a way to avoid action. Many conspiracy buffs are apathetic towards creating change but very active in their new 'religion'.
                  > > >
                  > > > Mary
                  > > > Mary, I have often written about the difference between individualists and collectivists. Some people are joiners and some are loners. I think existentialists are much more apt to be loners. I know I am an individualist. I am happy to say I just dumped three of my long time associations. I will not mention their names as I do not want to give them the publicity.
                  > > I tried " for cause" organisations such as the NRA and ACLU. I have quit all of them as I see them become single minded and obsessed. The collectivists continually find causes to band togeather . When ever someons pulls out Roberts Rules of Order,I quit, I leave. I think such joiners are cheap power troopers. They do not want any skin in the game but they want their egos stroked.
                  > > I learned these things from inside organisations that I was forced to join. I will not list them but I belong to none of them now. I still like many people and respect my friends . Joining up for single issues often morphs into horror shows. Just look at AARP. Bill
                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > I've enjoyed reading the recent exchange between Bill, Mary and h on the question of what existentialism is and what its significance is in the twenty-first century.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > I agree with Mary that an existentialist must have some sort of connection with at least one of the main existentialist writers – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus – or with some of the ideas which have been passed on by or from these great writers.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > For me what distinguishes existentialism from other philosophical movements is its emphasis on the fact that the individual is fundamentally alone in the world and is responsible for her actions and commitments and what she makes of her life. There is a distance between each of us as we are all different, with different thoughts, feelings, values and commitments.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > As Bill emphasizes existentialism is opposed to group-think such as organised religion or other forms of indoctrination from above.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > I attended a very interesting talk on Monday by someone called Jovan Byford who was talking about the question of the difference between real conspiracies and the sorts of conspiracy theories which are false.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > He gave what he thought were examples of real conspiracies – Watergate, the FBI infiltration of the Us Civil Rights Movement, and the Goldman Sachs conspiracy to disadvantage small investors in the interests of large investors. His main example of a false conspiracy theory was the theory that 9-11 was an inside job by the US Government.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > He said a mark of a genuine conspiracy was that it was localised in time and reach with a small number of conspirators, whereas the false conspiracy theories tended to be grand-scale linking various events over time and location. In fact conspiracy theorists tended to believe that a grand conspiracy run by a powerful secret elite has been running the world for centuries. The elite are often portrayed as of Jewish origin, although the more extreme theories may involve some type of alien life.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Conspiracy theories emerged in Europe – the first concerning a secret elite that orchestrated the French Revolution of 1789 – although today most conspiracy theories emerge in the US where there is a general distrust of the US Government and most US conspiracy theorists think the US Government is run or manipulated by the secret elite.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Why do I write all this?
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Well because it struck me after listening to the talk that the growing belief in conspiracy theories was a new sort of religion, with the mind-set of the `believers' very similar to the mind-set of religious believers. The faithful have gained access to a new truth whilst the non-believers are to be pitied for their naivety in believing the official stories. Further everything that happens can be fitted into their belief system such that once a person succumbs to conspiracy theory they rarely give up their conspiracy beliefs.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > In my view conspiracy theory is the new religion of the twenty-first century. Hopefully existentialists have the critical faculties and individual strength to resist this new form of religious belief.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Jim
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > Jim, I too have been listening to discussions of conspiracy theorys. I write this because of the threat I see emerging to individual thought. The cop who wants to cook and eat women is the center of this circus and he is being accused of thought crime. Now I think he is quite deranged but he made no overt acts toward anyone and is being prosecuted for his conversations with others. This kind of witch hunt goes beyond the normal prosecutorial bounds and I hope it is squelched post haste.
                  > > > > I have read so many conspiricy theories and find time is often the cure. Keeping an open mind during the often prolonged span of questioning is the key. I find most are not concluded and avoiding belief becomes the proper course. In so many cases there are not sufficent facts available so the theories go in the unsolved bin. As soon as you accept belief you risk religion. It is just bad thinking that is often accompanied by bigotry or greed.
                  > > > > Good to hear from you. Bill
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • William
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 1 2:50 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Bill,
                    >
                    > I support causes I agree with but not by joining organizations or by giving money. I do so at the risk of my individualism but for the sake of my authenticity. I petition, vote, and speak out wherever allowed. I'm ecstatic the House passed the expanded VAWA, and I don't feel this kind of activism violates my existentialist perspective. I let my representatives know who and what they need to represent; some need to be prevented from regaining office.
                    >
                    > Mary
                    > Mary, I wrote a long reply to this but it went into the vapor. Bill
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Bill, Jim, h...
                    > > >
                    > > > I think another characteristic which also fits the conspiracy believer is that strange combination of cynicism, incredulity, and naivete. Also perhaps the need to belong to something greater than themselves alone. It's a blend of thinking governments and the wealthiest control history and that no one person or small group can plan such tragedies, so there has to be some eternal plot to ruin everyone else. I'm not saying there are no conspiracies, because obviously there are. Here again it's another way of an individual seeking a large group to avoid controlling their own destiny by making decisions without that kind of certainty, a way to avoid action. Many conspiracy buffs are apathetic towards creating change but very active in their new 'religion'.
                    > > >
                    > > > Mary
                    > > > Mary, I have often written about the difference between individualists and collectivists. Some people are joiners and some are loners. I think existentialists are much more apt to be loners. I know I am an individualist. I am happy to say I just dumped three of my long time associations. I will not mention their names as I do not want to give them the publicity.
                    > > I tried " for cause" organisations such as the NRA and ACLU. I have quit all of them as I see them become single minded and obsessed. The collectivists continually find causes to band togeather . When ever someons pulls out Roberts Rules of Order,I quit, I leave. I think such joiners are cheap power troopers. They do not want any skin in the game but they want their egos stroked.
                    > > I learned these things from inside organisations that I was forced to join. I will not list them but I belong to none of them now. I still like many people and respect my friends . Joining up for single issues often morphs into horror shows. Just look at AARP. Bill
                    > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > I've enjoyed reading the recent exchange between Bill, Mary and h on the question of what existentialism is and what its significance is in the twenty-first century.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > I agree with Mary that an existentialist must have some sort of connection with at least one of the main existentialist writers – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus – or with some of the ideas which have been passed on by or from these great writers.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > For me what distinguishes existentialism from other philosophical movements is its emphasis on the fact that the individual is fundamentally alone in the world and is responsible for her actions and commitments and what she makes of her life. There is a distance between each of us as we are all different, with different thoughts, feelings, values and commitments.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > As Bill emphasizes existentialism is opposed to group-think such as organised religion or other forms of indoctrination from above.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > I attended a very interesting talk on Monday by someone called Jovan Byford who was talking about the question of the difference between real conspiracies and the sorts of conspiracy theories which are false.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > He gave what he thought were examples of real conspiracies – Watergate, the FBI infiltration of the Us Civil Rights Movement, and the Goldman Sachs conspiracy to disadvantage small investors in the interests of large investors. His main example of a false conspiracy theory was the theory that 9-11 was an inside job by the US Government.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > He said a mark of a genuine conspiracy was that it was localised in time and reach with a small number of conspirators, whereas the false conspiracy theories tended to be grand-scale linking various events over time and location. In fact conspiracy theorists tended to believe that a grand conspiracy run by a powerful secret elite has been running the world for centuries. The elite are often portrayed as of Jewish origin, although the more extreme theories may involve some type of alien life.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Conspiracy theories emerged in Europe – the first concerning a secret elite that orchestrated the French Revolution of 1789 – although today most conspiracy theories emerge in the US where there is a general distrust of the US Government and most US conspiracy theorists think the US Government is run or manipulated by the secret elite.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Why do I write all this?
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Well because it struck me after listening to the talk that the growing belief in conspiracy theories was a new sort of religion, with the mind-set of the `believers' very similar to the mind-set of religious believers. The faithful have gained access to a new truth whilst the non-believers are to be pitied for their naivety in believing the official stories. Further everything that happens can be fitted into their belief system such that once a person succumbs to conspiracy theory they rarely give up their conspiracy beliefs.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > In my view conspiracy theory is the new religion of the twenty-first century. Hopefully existentialists have the critical faculties and individual strength to resist this new form of religious belief.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > Jim
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > Jim, I too have been listening to discussions of conspiracy theorys. I write this because of the threat I see emerging to individual thought. The cop who wants to cook and eat women is the center of this circus and he is being accused of thought crime. Now I think he is quite deranged but he made no overt acts toward anyone and is being prosecuted for his conversations with others. This kind of witch hunt goes beyond the normal prosecutorial bounds and I hope it is squelched post haste.
                    > > > > I have read so many conspiricy theories and find time is often the cure. Keeping an open mind during the often prolonged span of questioning is the key. I find most are not concluded and avoiding belief becomes the proper course. In so many cases there are not sufficent facts available so the theories go in the unsolved bin. As soon as you accept belief you risk religion. It is just bad thinking that is often accompanied by bigotry or greed.
                    > > > > Good to hear from you. Bill
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Bhanu Padmo
                    William!  (Notion of Individualistic Collectivism)   It depends on how one defines *individualism* and *collectivism*.   These two notions are ascribable to
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 12 1:06 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      William! 
                      (Notion of
                      Individualistic Collectivism)

                       

                      It
                      depends on how one defines *individualism* and *collectivism*.

                       

                      These
                      two notions are ascribable to two different levels viz. elementary and
                      composite levels of personal existence. The first level is rather *theoretical*
                      when the entity may wistfully deem itself as *solitary*. The second level is
                      rather *real* when the entity is, contrary to its wistfulness, a part of an
                      integrated/ whole system of constituents.

                       

                      Both
                      notions, viz. individualism and collectivism, are simultaneously applicable to
                      self-existence. How? We may have to refer to the Magnate-Analogy for this.

                       

                      Take
                      an individual as one of innumerable magnetic iron-particles that compose a
                      bar-magnet. Effects of personal polarities of these individuals add up to give
                      rise to integral/ systemic polarity. Not the vice versa. That is to say, the
                      conjured-up ghost of integral/ systemic polarity doesn*t create an individual
                      polarity.

                       

                      The
                      collective effect is the sum total of the common inherent property taken over
                      all constituent individuals. The objective of such summation of consenting and
                      convergent common inherence is *escalated* individual prowess and benefits.

                       

                      Collectivism
                      is understanding and execution of collectivistic amelioration of
                      individualistic existence, when individualism is unhindered self-appraisal and
                      execution of own inherence and potentiality.

                       

                      Clearly,
                      collectivism has two components viz. (i) collectivistic amelioration of own
                      existence through personal collation (own blending with the collective at the
                      interface) and (ii) collectivistic amelioration of own existence through
                      integral/ hierarchical collation (own blending with the collective in latter*s
                      hierarchical womb).

                       

                      The
                      benefits of collectivism accrues in an arithmetic/ geometric progression
                      because of the first component and in an exponential progression because of the
                      second component.

                       

                      Collectivistic
                      amelioration of the collective (as the sum total of the double-edged individual
                      amelioration taken over all constituents) is the *by-product*, not the *primary
                      objective*.

                       

                      The
                      morbid misplaced/ disproportionate personal apprehension of being *pruned* by
                      the collectivistic machinery when one is being actually *preened* is due to
                      mistaking the aforesaid *by-product* for *primary objective*.

                       

                      So,
                      wouldn*t you like to have your individualistic existence ameliorated through
                      the two-pronged benignant collectivism without the self-thread of being *sacrificed
                      indiscriminately* for the collective? Yes, we suppose.

                       

                      Let*s
                      call this notion of collectivism the *individualistic collectivism*.




                      (Bhanu Padmo)

                      http://www.bhanupadmo.com


                      You
                      may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
                      as well

                      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.





                      --- On Fri, 3/1/13, William <vize9938@...> wrote:

                      From: William <vize9938@...>
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: Beware the new religion
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Friday, March 1, 2013, 10:50 PM
















                       













                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:

                      >

                      > Bill,

                      >

                      > I support causes I agree with but not by joining organizations or by giving money. I do so at the risk of my individualism but for the sake of my authenticity. I petition, vote, and speak out wherever allowed. I'm ecstatic the House passed the expanded VAWA, and I don't feel this kind of activism violates my existentialist perspective. I let my representatives know who and what they need to represent; some need to be prevented from regaining office.

                      >

                      > Mary

                      > Mary, I wrote a long reply to this but it went into the vapor. Bill

                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote:

                      > >

                      > >

                      > >

                      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:

                      > > >

                      > > > Bill, Jim, h...

                      > > >

                      > > > I think another characteristic which also fits the conspiracy believer is that strange combination of cynicism, incredulity, and naivete. Also perhaps the need to belong to something greater than themselves alone. It's a blend of thinking governments and the wealthiest control history and that no one person or small group can plan such tragedies, so there has to be some eternal plot to ruin everyone else. I'm not saying there are no conspiracies, because obviously there are. Here again it's another way of an individual seeking a large group to avoid controlling their own destiny by making decisions without that kind of certainty, a way to avoid action. Many conspiracy buffs are apathetic towards creating change but very active in their new 'religion'.

                      > > >

                      > > > Mary

                      > > > Mary, I have often written about the difference between individualists and collectivists. Some people are joiners and some are loners. I think existentialists are much more apt to be loners. I know I am an individualist. I am happy to say I just dumped three of my long time associations. I will not mention their names as I do not want to give them the publicity.

                      > > I tried " for cause" organisations such as the NRA and ACLU. I have quit all of them as I see them become single minded and obsessed. The collectivists continually find causes to band togeather . When ever someons pulls out Roberts Rules of Order,I quit, I leave. I think such joiners are cheap power troopers. They do not want any skin in the game but they want their egos stroked.

                      > > I learned these things from inside organisations that I was forced to join. I will not list them but I belong to none of them now. I still like many people and respect my friends . Joining up for single issues often morphs into horror shows. Just look at AARP. Bill

                      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote:

                      > > > >

                      > > > >

                      > > > >

                      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" wrote:

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > I've enjoyed reading the recent exchange between Bill, Mary and h on the question of what existentialism is and what its significance is in the twenty-first century.

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > I agree with Mary that an existentialist must have some sort of connection with at least one of the main existentialist writers – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus – or with some of the ideas which have been passed on by or from these great writers.

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > For me what distinguishes existentialism from other philosophical movements is its emphasis on the fact that the individual is fundamentally alone in the world and is responsible for her actions and commitments and what she makes of her life. There is a distance between each of us as we are all different, with different thoughts, feelings, values and commitments.

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > As Bill emphasizes existentialism is opposed to group-think such as organised religion or other forms of indoctrination from above.

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > I attended a very interesting talk on Monday by someone called Jovan Byford who was talking about the question of the difference between real conspiracies and the sorts of conspiracy theories which are false.

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > He gave what he thought were examples of real conspiracies – Watergate, the FBI infiltration of the Us Civil Rights Movement, and the Goldman Sachs conspiracy to disadvantage small investors in the interests of large investors. His main example of a false conspiracy theory was the theory that 9-11 was an inside job by the US Government.

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > He said a mark of a genuine conspiracy was that it was localised in time and reach with a small number of conspirators, whereas the false conspiracy theories tended to be grand-scale linking various events over time and location. In fact conspiracy theorists tended to believe that a grand conspiracy run by a powerful secret elite has been running the world for centuries. The elite are often portrayed as of Jewish origin, although the more extreme theories may involve some type of alien life.

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > Conspiracy theories emerged in Europe – the first concerning a secret elite that orchestrated the French Revolution of 1789 – although today most conspiracy theories emerge in the US where there is a general distrust of the US Government and most US conspiracy theorists think the US Government is run or manipulated by the secret elite.

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > Why do I write all this?

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > Well because it struck me after listening to the talk that the growing belief in conspiracy theories was a new sort of religion, with the mind-set of the `believers' very similar to the mind-set of religious believers. The faithful have gained access to a new truth whilst the non-believers are to be pitied for their naivety in believing the official stories. Further everything that happens can be fitted into their belief system such that once a person succumbs to conspiracy theory they rarely give up their conspiracy beliefs.

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > In my view conspiracy theory is the new religion of the twenty-first century. Hopefully existentialists have the critical faculties and individual strength to resist this new form of religious belief.

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > > Jim

                      > > > > >

                      > > > > Jim, I too have been listening to discussions of conspiracy theorys. I write this because of the threat I see emerging to individual thought. The cop who wants to cook and eat women is the center of this circus and he is being accused of thought crime. Now I think he is quite deranged but he made no overt acts toward anyone and is being prosecuted for his conversations with others. This kind of witch hunt goes beyond the normal prosecutorial bounds and I hope it is squelched post haste.

                      > > > > I have read so many conspiricy theories and find time is often the cure. Keeping an open mind during the often prolonged span of questioning is the key. I find most are not concluded and avoiding belief becomes the proper course. In so many cases there are not sufficent facts available so the theories go in the unsolved bin. As soon as you accept belief you risk religion. It is just bad thinking that is often accompanied by bigotry or greed.

                      > > > > Good to hear from you. Bill

                      > > > >

                      > > >

                      > >

                      >



























                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Bhanu Padmo
                      Correction : Please read *self-threat* for *self-thread* in the following text (addressed to William). ... From: Bhanu Padmo Subject:
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 12 11:15 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Correction : Please read *self-threat* for *self-thread* in the following text (addressed to William).

                        --- On Tue, 3/12/13, Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...> wrote:

                        From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>
                        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Beware the new religion
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com, greenlogic@yahoogroups.com, esotericismspirituality@yahoogroups.com, Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com, TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com, seerseeker@yahoogroups.com, TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013, 8:06 AM




                        William! 
                        (Notion of
                        Individualistic Collectivism)

                         

                        It
                        depends on how one defines *individualism* and *collectivism*.

                         

                        These
                        two notions are ascribable to two different levels viz. elementary and
                        composite levels of personal existence. The first level is rather *theoretical*
                        when the entity may wistfully deem itself as *solitary*. The second level is
                        rather *real* when the entity is, contrary to its wistfulness, a part of an
                        integrated/ whole system of constituents.

                         

                        Both
                        notions, viz. individualism and collectivism, are simultaneously applicable to
                        self-existence. How? We may have to refer to the Magnate-Analogy for this.

                         

                        Take
                        an individual as one of innumerable magnetic iron-particles that compose a
                        bar-magnet. Effects of personal polarities of these individuals add up to give
                        rise to integral/ systemic polarity. Not the vice versa. That is to say, the
                        conjured-up ghost of integral/ systemic polarity doesn*t create an individual
                        polarity.

                         

                        The
                        collective effect is the sum total of the common inherent property taken over
                        all constituent individuals. The objective of such summation of consenting and
                        convergent common inherence is *escalated* individual prowess and benefits.

                         

                        Collectivism
                        is understanding and execution of collectivistic amelioration of
                        individualistic existence, when individualism is unhindered self-appraisal and
                        execution of own inherence and potentiality.

                         

                        Clearly,
                        collectivism has two components viz. (i) collectivistic amelioration of own
                        existence through personal collation (own blending with the collective at the
                        interface) and (ii) collectivistic amelioration of own existence through
                        integral/ hierarchical collation (own blending with the collective in latter*s
                        hierarchical womb).

                         

                        The
                        benefits of collectivism accrues in an arithmetic/ geometric progression
                        because of the first component and in an exponential progression because of the
                        second component.

                         

                        Collectivistic
                        amelioration of the collective (as the sum total of the double-edged individual
                        amelioration taken over all constituents) is the *by-product*, not the *primary
                        objective*.

                         

                        The
                        morbid misplaced/ disproportionate personal apprehension of being *pruned* by
                        the collectivistic machinery when one is being actually *preened* is due to
                        mistaking the aforesaid *by-product* for *primary objective*.

                         

                        So,
                        wouldn*t you like to have your individualistic existence ameliorated through
                        the two-pronged benignant collectivism without the self-thread of being *sacrificed
                        indiscriminately* for the collective? Yes, we suppose.

                         

                        Let*s
                        call this notion of collectivism the *individualistic collectivism*.




                        (Bhanu Padmo)

                        http://www.bhanupadmo.com


                        You
                        may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0
                        as well

                        or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.





                        --- On Fri, 3/1/13, William <vize9938@...> wrote:

                        From: William <vize9938@...>
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: Beware the new religion
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Friday, March 1, 2013, 10:50 PM
















                         













                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:

                        >

                        > Bill,

                        >

                        > I support causes I agree with but not by joining organizations or by giving money. I do so at the risk of my individualism but for the sake of my authenticity. I petition, vote, and speak out wherever allowed. I'm ecstatic the House passed the expanded VAWA, and I don't feel this kind of activism violates my existentialist perspective. I let my representatives know who and what they need to represent; some need to be prevented from regaining office.

                        >

                        > Mary

                        > Mary, I wrote a long reply to this but it went into the vapor. Bill

                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote:

                        > >

                        > >

                        > >

                        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" wrote:

                        > > >

                        > > > Bill, Jim, h...

                        > > >

                        > > > I think another characteristic which also fits the conspiracy believer is that strange combination of cynicism, incredulity, and naivete. Also perhaps the need to belong to something greater than themselves alone. It's a blend of thinking governments and the wealthiest control history and that no one person or small group can plan such tragedies, so there has to be some eternal plot to ruin everyone else. I'm not saying there are no conspiracies, because obviously there are. Here again it's another way of an individual seeking a large group to avoid controlling their own destiny by making decisions without that kind of certainty, a way to avoid action. Many conspiracy buffs are apathetic towards creating change but very active in their new 'religion'.

                        > > >

                        > > > Mary

                        > > > Mary, I have often written about the difference between individualists and collectivists. Some people are joiners and some are loners. I think existentialists are much more apt to be loners. I know I am an individualist. I am happy to say I just dumped three of my long time associations. I will not mention their names as I do not want to give them the publicity.

                        > > I tried " for cause" organisations such as the NRA and ACLU. I have quit all of them as I see them become single minded and obsessed. The collectivists continually find causes to band togeather . When ever someons pulls out Roberts Rules of Order,I quit, I leave. I think such joiners are cheap power troopers. They do not want any skin in the game but they want their egos stroked.

                        > > I learned these things from inside organisations that I was forced to join. I will not list them but I belong to none of them now. I still like many people and respect my friends . Joining up for single issues often morphs into horror shows. Just look at AARP. Bill

                        > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote:

                        > > > >

                        > > > >

                        > > > >

                        > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" wrote:

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > I've enjoyed reading the recent exchange between Bill, Mary and h on the question of what existentialism is and what its significance is in the twenty-first century.

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > I agree with Mary that an existentialist must have some sort of connection with at least one of the main existentialist writers – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus – or with some of the ideas which have been passed on by or from these great writers.

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > For me what distinguishes existentialism from other philosophical movements is its emphasis on the fact that the individual is fundamentally alone in the world and is responsible for her actions and commitments and what she makes of her life. There is a distance between each of us as we are all different, with different thoughts, feelings, values and commitments.

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > As Bill emphasizes existentialism is opposed to group-think such as organised religion or other forms of indoctrination from above.

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > I attended a very interesting talk on Monday by someone called Jovan Byford who was talking about the question of the difference between real conspiracies and the sorts of conspiracy theories which are false.

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > He gave what he thought were examples of real conspiracies – Watergate, the FBI infiltration of the Us Civil Rights Movement, and the Goldman Sachs conspiracy to disadvantage small investors in the interests of large investors. His main example of a false conspiracy theory was the theory that 9-11 was an inside job by the US Government.

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > He said a mark of a genuine conspiracy was that it was localised in time and reach with a small number of conspirators, whereas the false conspiracy theories tended to be grand-scale linking various events over time and location. In fact conspiracy theorists tended to believe that a grand conspiracy run by a powerful secret elite has been running the world for centuries. The elite are often portrayed as of Jewish origin, although the more extreme theories may involve some type of alien life.

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > Conspiracy theories emerged in Europe – the first concerning a secret elite that orchestrated the French Revolution of 1789 – although today most conspiracy theories emerge in the US where there is a general distrust of the US Government and most US conspiracy theorists think the US Government is run or manipulated by the secret elite.

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > Why do I write all this?

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > Well because it struck me after listening to the talk that the growing belief in conspiracy theories was a new sort of religion, with the mind-set of the `believers' very similar to the mind-set of religious believers. The faithful have gained access to a new truth whilst the non-believers are to be pitied for their naivety in believing the official stories. Further everything that happens can be fitted into their belief system such that once a person succumbs to conspiracy theory they rarely give up their conspiracy beliefs.

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > In my view conspiracy theory is the new religion of the twenty-first century. Hopefully existentialists have the critical faculties and individual strength to resist this new form of religious belief.

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > > Jim

                        > > > > >

                        > > > > Jim, I too have been listening to discussions of conspiracy theorys. I write this because of the threat I see emerging to individual thought. The cop who wants to cook and eat women is the center of this circus and he is being accused of thought crime. Now I think he is quite deranged but he made no overt acts toward anyone and is being prosecuted for his conversations with others. This kind of witch hunt goes beyond the normal prosecutorial bounds and I hope it is squelched post haste.

                        > > > > I have read so many conspiricy theories and find time is often the cure. Keeping an open mind during the often prolonged span of questioning is the key. I find most are not concluded and avoiding belief becomes the proper course. In so many cases there are not sufficent facts available so the theories go in the unsolved bin. As soon as you accept belief you risk religion. It is just bad thinking that is often accompanied by bigotry or greed.

                        > > > > Good to hear from you. Bill

                        > > > >

                        > > >

                        > >

                        >



























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