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

Re: more nothing

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    I think the anxiety relates to just how substantial the break in being might be. It calls into question reality itself; how much of what we experience now in
    Message 1 of 43 , May 12 10:43 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I think the anxiety relates to just how substantial the break in being might be. It calls into question reality itself; how much of what we experience now in time is merely a construct and series of negations? Nothingness creeps into every determination causes us to suspect we are making up reality as we go. The psychic disruption causes anxiety and goads us to speculate about freedom and responsibility.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, christopher arthur <chris.arthur1@...> wrote:
      >
      > It seems clear that there is a sense of negativity about noticing that
      > Pierre is no longer in the room, but it isn't clear why this should be a
      > cause for anxiety. I could be happy when some people whom I don't like
      > leave the room.
      >
      > I also wonder if this process of negation in thought isn't like when I
      > get an idea to do something and I am happy to have thought of it, but as
      > time passes I start to doubt myself and think that my own ideas are
      > stupid and worthless until I don't care about them anymore. In this
      > case a negative energy has destroyed an idea, and there is a void where
      > it once was.
      >
      > On 5/11/2013 4:57 PM, Mary wrote:
      > >
      > > eduard,
      > >
      > > Sartre isn't so much concerned with absence of something or someone as
      > > he is with what happens to thought, how it has to break with itself
      > > with every nihilation it thinks. For Sartre any anxiety about a
      > > temporary absence is overshadowed by what happens in thought, the
      > > enacting of a rupture with the continuity of being.
      > >
      > > Concerning Pierre's absence, "If in terms of my perception of the
      > > room, I conceive of the former inhabitant who is no longer in the
      > > room, I am of necessity forced to produce an act of thought which no
      > > prior state can determine nor motivate, in short to effect in myself a
      > > break with being. And in so far as I continually use negativities to
      > > isolate and determine existents---i.e., to think them--- the
      > > succession of my "states of consciousness" is a perpetual separation
      > > of effect from cause, since every nihilating process must derive its
      > > source from only itself...Every psychic process of nihilation implies
      > > then a cleavage between the immediate psychic past and the present. "
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > > eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I think one has to go to the original French meaning of
      > > âEURoenéantâEUR?
      > > >
      > > > From Larousse ...
      > > >
      > > > Le non-être, le fait de ne pas être, de ne plus être.
      > > >
      > > > La non-existence, ce qui précède ou suit l'existence : Retourner
      > > au néant.
      > > >
      > > > Le peu de valeur de quelque chose, de quelqu'un : Le néant de la
      > > gloire.
      > > >
      > > > Absence totale, vide : Le néant total de sa pensée ne vous a pas
      > > frappé ?
      > > >
      > > > En style administratif, absence totale de certains éléments, rien
      > > à signaler : Signes particuliers : néant.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > With respect to your example of the desk, the âEURoenéantâEUR? or
      > > âEURoenothingâEUR? isnâEUR^(TM)t your imagining the absence of the
      > > calendar, it is rather the actual absence of the calendar and your
      > > having to deal with that reduction to âEURoenéantâEUR?.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > The question in my mind is why should that lead to anxiety?? So what
      > > if the calendar is no longer there??
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > eduard
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: Jim
      > > > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:17 AM
      > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: more nothing
      > > >
      > > > Mary,
      > > >
      > > > Your short summary of your thoughts on Being and Nothing is a
      > > helpful focus and stimulus for my own thoughts.
      > > >
      > > > For me Nothing is a concept (a mental construct) which does not pick
      > > out anything in reality. If we want to refer to a component of
      > > reality, or a possible state of reality we should rather use the word
      > > `Nothingness'. Here I am following what Jim Holt writes in his book at
      > > page 49:
      > > >
      > > > << As the logicians remind us, nothing is not a name; it is mere
      > > shorthand for "not anything." To say, for example, that "nothing is
      > > greater than God" is not to talk about a super-divine entity; it is
      > > simply to say that there is not anything greater than God.
      > > "Nothingness," by contrast, is indeed a name. It designates an
      > > ontological option, a possible reality, a conceivable state of
      > > affairs: that in which nothing exists. >>
      > > >
      > > > Unlike Hegel, I try to keep a distance between my thoughts
      > > (including the concepts I use) and the aspects of reality my thoughts
      > > are about. So in thought I can negate things: I can imagine my desk
      > > without the calendar on it âEUR" i.e. I can imagine my desk with an
      > > empty space where my calendar traditionally sits. However I cannot
      > > make the calendar disappear from my desk by thought alone. I would
      > > need to physically pick it up and move it for that to happen.
      > > Certainly we can change reality and make things disappear, e.g. by
      > > burning them, but thought alone cannot change reality, in my view.
      > > (Arguably I cannot even change my mental life by thought alone. I can
      > > try to erase a particular painful memory, but that painful memory
      > > keeps coming back.)
      > > >
      > > > I still think the thought `why is there something rather than
      > > nothing?' is a powerful thought which, if nothing else, fills me with
      > > a sense of wonder that there is something at all, and I am a part of
      > > it. From my own perspective I am a big part of this reality, but from
      > > the outside (objective) perspective I am a mere tiny (very temporary)
      > > fraction of what there is.
      > > >
      > > > I think even the advances in science of the last hundred years or
      > > so, with the new knowledge that our universe started from something
      > > extremely small (possibly nothing at all) and is currently expanding
      > > outwards, does not remove my sense of wonder that I am a part of this
      > > strange reality, currently hammering away at my laptop keyboard.
      > > >
      > > > 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]
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • eduardathome
      Although it isn’t a philosophy but only a tool, there are a ton of influences which lead to Nooism. The primary influence, however, was the brain surgery I
      Message 43 of 43 , Jun 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Although it isn’t a philosophy but only a tool, there are a ton of influences which lead to Nooism. The primary influence, however, was the brain surgery I underwent when I was in my early 40s.

        In any case, I don’t think that one can truly engage a philosopher X’s ideas without some understanding of the influences. I don’t see it otherwise. Why Sartre came up with Being and Nothingness is as important as the philosophy itself.

        eduard

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Jim
        Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 2:12 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Re: Sartre's influences

        Mary - I believe the major philosophical influence on "Being and Nothingness" was Heidegger's "Being and Time". Sartre, I believe, studied this work closely before writing his own magnum opus.


        Sartre takes over some of Heidegger's ideas wholesale like "existence precedes essence". The early Sartre was more existentialist, the later Sartre was more Marxist.

        Eduard - I worry that a concern over the question "What were the influences on philosopher X?" is often a substitute for directly engaging with philosopher X's ideas and claims.

        Should I be more concerned to understand and grapple with your Philosophy of Nooism? Or should I be more concerned to uncover the influences on you which resulted in your personal philosophy?

        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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.