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

Re: [existlist] Re: shaping essence

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    I am only pointing out that when we think ... that is, to come to a decision ... we are using our own programming in our brains. To make a decision, we weigh
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 26 3:02 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I am only pointing out that when we think ... that is, to come to a decision
      ... we are using our own programming in our brains. To make a decision, we
      weigh this and that factor and come up a conclusion. The this and that may
      be special to ourselves instead of actual law outside the person. The
      chicken may cross the street on a green light because the law says he/she is
      to do so. The chicken may cross the street because he/she thought they saw
      a shadow of a wolf and it was time to get out of there. The chicken may
      cross the street because it has a passion [compulsion] to cross things. A
      bi-polar chicken.

      The thing is that the chicken comes to that decision by programming [a
      formula]. The chicken may not have freewill in that circumstance to decide
      not to cross the street. Like some humans, they run the program without
      questioning the factors. Yet it is arguable that one still does not have
      freewill if the factors are questioned ... for reason that any change is
      again a decision which has other factors which are learned by experience. I
      live in Quebec, so even if I reassess my programming it is likely to be
      socialist in orientation which would be different from if I had lived in say
      some parts of the US. So do I really have freewill??

      Perhaps "freewill" is a matter of exposing yourself to as many experiences
      as possible and thereby can actually do something different. When I do my
      thinking, I often bring in what I have learned in my travels.

      But the key point is always that our brain "thinks" on the basis of
      programming.

      I would state Melville's quote as ... "We cannot live for ourselves alone.
      Our thinking is connected by a thousand mutually held factors, and because
      of this our choices become causes and return to us as results."

      eduard

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary
      Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 11:42 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: shaping essence

      eduard,

      With this tangled web of programmed programmers I see great difficulty in
      determining which program is chosen, freely or otherwise, and whether
      choosing this choice to choose differently was originally programmed,
      subsequently self-programmed, or inserted by other programmed programmers.
      It's only my opinion, but it seems simpler to say I have an undetermined
      amount of free will which I will try to exercise in order to make better
      choices and that I might need the support of others who do likewise. Since
      ability, or will as you describe it, varies among people (aka programs, as
      you describe us), it makes sense that the blind leading the blind is an apt
      and poignant metaphor for reshaping essence.

      "We cannot live for ourselves alone. Our lives are connected by a thousand
      invisible threads, and along these sympathetic fibers, our actions run as
      causes and return to us as results." Herman Melville

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > But the reality is that we ARE all programmed. When you make a decision,
      > you are weighing factors which are part of your upbringing, experience and
      > circumstance. You can even assess the programming. If someone makes a
      > decision, ask them ... why. Some may initially say they don't know, but
      > if
      > you question enough, you will find the reason.
      >
      > Why did the chicken cross the street??
      >
      > In fact you can't make a decision without weighing factors. The word
      > itself
      > implies a weighing as to how you cut something up.
      >
      > Granted there are those who are affected by genetic flaws and those
      > traumatised, but even here they are making a decision on the basis of
      > something.
      >
      > They guy who gets pushed onto the rails of a metro is not making a
      > decision.
      >
      > We are programmed because we have tendencies that guide what we do. A
      > person who is traumatized may go to his/her particular tendency and indeed
      > may find it difficult to go to some new decision. That is why these
      > people
      > are treated.
      >
      > I am not saying it's easy. Getting away from our tendencies and make new
      > decisions that have beneficial result is part of maturing. Having an open
      > mind is being able to adopt new programming. We can reshape our essence.
      >
      > But this is also an argument that we do not have free will. Our "will" is
      > our ability to choose. Is there a case for which a person makes a
      > decision
      > [chooses] without weighing factors that are a part of his/her makeup??
      > The
      > factors are our own personal programming. Therefore, there is no free
      > will.
      >
      > eduard
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:41 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] shaping essence
      >
      > eduard,
      >
      > No, not unable to make decisions but perhaps impaired in varying degrees
      > to
      > make those decisions which align with our will. Think of those affected by
      > genetic flaws and those traumatized or simply victims of bad luck. We're
      > not
      > all programmed, either by nature or nurture, to change our programming as
      > easily as you make it seem.
      >
      > Neither does a summation of the years of hard work to gain understanding
      > and
      > the ability to change what we're able to change adequately represent the
      > difficulty it took getting t/here. Individual strengths vary from one
      > person
      > to another, and what seems to have the greatest impact on someone's
      > ability
      > to change is support from others.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I don't think anyone is saying that a person is helpless to make
      > > decisions.
      > > We are programmed to make decisions
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Mary
      > > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:03 PM
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Existentialism...correction
      > >
      > > Should have said free will rather than freedom since I bothered to make
      > > the
      > > distinction in a previous post. I don't know anyone who acts thinking
      > > they're programmed and helpless to make decisions when there are genuine
      > > options available. Of course we also need an environment in which
      > > certain
      > > freedoms are guaranteed in order to exercise whatever free will we think
      > > we
      > > have.
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > What I love about Sartre's existentialism is that we are not
      > > > completely
      > > > bound by either formulas or genetic determination. If we think that we
      > > > are, then we are not free to create our essence. It's probably more
      > > > accurate to say we have some freedom and live as if we do.
      > > >
      > > > Mary
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "existlist" <hermitcrab65@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote: But
      > > > > even if you thought about it, your criteria for
      > > > > > thinking is also a matter of programming, so the possibility of
      > > > > > free
      > > > > > will
      > > > > > becomes questionable. Perhaps the only person who can have free
      > > > > > will
      > > > > > is a
      > > > > > new-born baby.
      > > > >
      > > > > ===Or a zygote because a new-born baby already has genes expressing
      > > > > themselves. Maybe that's why Herman Polly was a_zygote on this list
      > > > > a
      > > > > few years back. I remember he/she did not believe in the concept of
      > > > > a
      > > > > 'self'.
      > > > >
      > > > > h.
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
      > > nothing!
      > >
      > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      >




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

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

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • eduardathome
      I still get the feeling that it is words for the sake of words. Take for example your statement of .... Since to be a living being has diversity within
      Message 67 of 67 , May 10, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I still get the feeling that it is words for the sake of words.

        Take for example your statement of ....

        "Since to be a living being has "diversity within itself", e.g., human
        beings are living beings, it cannot be the same as pure being".

        You have prior defined things "pure" as having no diversity. Therefore it
        goes without saying that a living being which is also defined as "diversity"
        within itself cannot be "pure" being.

        But, you could just as easily say that diversity is inherent to being and
        thus an attribute of pure being. Afterall, living is action, otherwise you
        are dead. Action itself is diverse in that it can vary. If it doesn't
        vary, you are back to "dead". Therefore, living which is known by its
        diversity is pure being.

        We eventually come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as pure
        being, because we define it in a fashion as to make it impossible.

        I don't think "nothingness" is about the end or beginning of something. I
        think "nothingness" is a mental state or state of mind in which one tries to
        deal with the absence of something. That is, something that one's brain
        expects to be there, but cannot find anything at that location. I think
        that is the meaning of Sartre's néant as not being. Of course I could be
        wrong and I am biased by my philosophy of Nooism which poses that everything
        we think of is resolvable down to mental states. The anxiety comes from not
        finding the thing that is supposed to be there. The expectation is that
        Pierre would be seated in chair #3. Since he isn't there, or rather his
        "not-being" is there leads to anxiety. In the end, it has very little to do
        with the real world presence or absence of Pierre, but only the way in which
        our brains try to conceptualize Pierre.

        eduard

        -----Original Message-----
        From: christopher arthur
        Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:34 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: shaping nothing

        Eduard,

        Maybe the intention is to say that the absolute distinction of Being and
        Nothing is made while one becomes the other, but otherwise they are the
        same. Also he seems to say that the process already happened, so that
        they are no longer in a state of becoming, and therefore always
        presently the same.

        Somehow this reminds me of the Timaeus of Plato where Socrates, with his
        friends, is discussing the beginning of the universe, and they stop to
        make the point to distinguish "between that which always is and never
        becomes from that which is always becoming but never is." In these
        cases what can we say about beginnings and endings, or is there no
        anxiety of nothingness here because we cannot find the ends of such things?

        One question to ask is whether we can feel what pure being is by trying
        to generalize from examples of being...like a human being or a living
        being. Since to be a living being has "diversity within itself", e.g.,
        human beings are living beings, it cannot be the same as pure being.
        But then, why don't we eventually come to the conclusion that there is
        no such thing as pure being? Maybe we're supposed to think that there
        is a little bit of pure being in everything.

        chris

        eduardathome a écrit :
        >
        >
        > One gets the feeling that this is just words for the sake of words.
        >
        > “Pure Being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same”.
        >
        > “... on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely
        > distinct”.
        >
        > eduard
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary
        > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:07 AM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: shaping nothing
        >
        > Hello Jim,
        >
        > The Zizek quotes are from "Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of
        > Dialectical Materialism" Verso 2012.
        >
        > If what we experience are appearances expressing universal ideas,
        > though something, they appear out of nothing. However, illusory being
        > is the only being we have. Something and Nothing both exist as
        > necessary conditions for one another. Nothing is often capitalized to
        > indicate the concept rather than the feeling of nothingness associated
        > with existential anxiety. Previous to reading Hegel I thought absolute
        > Nothing was merely theoretical and only Being was, but my current
        > understanding of Nothing is derived from Hegel's Science of Logic
        > quoted as follows:
        >
        > A. BEING
        > Being, pure being, without any further determination. In its
        > indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself. It is also not
        > unequal relatively to an other; it has no diversity within itself nor
        > any with a reference outwards. It would not be held fast in its purity
        > if it contained any determination or content which could be
        > distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an
        > other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. There is nothing to
        > be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only
        > this pure intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought
        > in it, or it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the
        > indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less
        > than nothing.(Hegel, Science of Logic §132)
        >
        > B. NOTHING
        > Nothing, pure nothing: it is simply equality with itself, complete
        > emptiness, absence of all determination and content —
        > undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can
        > be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or
        > nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has,
        > therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is
        > (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is empty intuition
        > and thought itself, and the same empty intuition or thought as pure
        > being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather
        > absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being.
        > (§133)
        >
        > C. BECOMING
        > Pure Being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the
        > truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being — does not pass
        > over but has passed over — into nothing, and nothing into being. But
        > it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other,
        > that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely
        > distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that
        > each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore,
        > this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other:
        > becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a
        > difference which has equally immediately resolved itself. (§134)
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi Mary,
        > >
        > > I struggle to make sense of the Zizek quotes – which of his books
        > are you quoting from?
        > >
        > > In particular the following quote does not seem satisfactory to me:
        > >
        > > ...The answer to "Why is there Something rather than Nothing" is
        > thus that there IS only Nothing, and all processes take place "from
        > Nothing through Nothing to Nothing." (p.38)
        > >
        > > Surely this is not correct. I know there is something – myself, my
        > family, my keyboard, my desk, my flat, my work colleagues. So Zizek is
        > wrong to say there is only nothing.
        > >
        > > And why does he spell nothing with a capital `N'?
        > >
        > > A perplexed Jim
        > >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >



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

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

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.