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

Re: Nothing is inside/outside the frame

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Wil, Thank you. It seems we ve come full circle back to nothingness, the place where most non-philosophical conversation ends, where in fact it should be
    Message 1 of 171 , Jul 2 9:20 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Wil,

      Thank you. It seems we've come full circle back to nothingness, the place where most non-philosophical conversation ends, where in fact it should be begin.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      > I like that very much. Of course, unless one already knows what this means, one doesn't.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
      > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tue, Jul 2, 2013 10:25 am
      > Subject: [existlist] Nothing is inside/outside the frame
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yes perspective involves framing as an endless series of observations in ever widening circles. This merely points to the nothingness of consciousness as a circularity of being in-itself and being for-itself. Framing points to human consciousness as an appearance within an appearance, which is all that reality is. Knowledge, or the determination of an appearance, doesn't change the subjective relationship of consciousness with its objects, including itself. All continues to be merely appearance out of nothing, but only the subject is free. Only a subject knows it is nothing as well as being.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Eduard,
      > >
      > > Thank you for your post.
      > >
      > > My claim was that I am capable of two levels (or orders) of consciousness. I have first-order consciousness – consciousness of the objects around me in my immediate environment. I also have second-order consciousness – I can focus my attention and awareness on my first-order conscious experience itself – I can be consciousness of my present (first-order) conscious experience. I don't claim to have any third-order consciousness, or any further higher-order consciousness.
      > >
      > > I thought your original point was that you thought only first-order consciousness was possible. You seemed to be saying second-order consciousness was not possible.
      > >
      > > In your latest post, you seem to be making a different point – that in any level of consciousness there is something missed out – the "I" (or the eye) behind the lens, so to speak. Just like in ordinary vision the eye which sees does not see itself. Of course a mirror can enable the eye to see itself, but in the case of the "inner eye" there is no "inner mirror".
      > >
      > > This point is similar to Hume's old point that in any experience or thought I can have, I can never experience the "I" that is the subject of the experience or thought. I think this point is correct.
      > >
      > > I view the subject of my first-order consciousness and my second-order consciousness to be the human being Jim Stuart. Whether or not in any conscious experience something is missed out - the subject of the experience "behind the lens" – I am not sure. Perhaps you are right – the film crew doing the filming is a part of reality which is never observed.
      > >
      > > Jim
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • daveylee40
      It seems to me that we are limited to the qualities and capacities of humanness as supplied by the natural state of being human. Other than that, I personally
      Message 171 of 171 , Aug 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        It seems to me that we are limited to the qualities and capacities of humanness as supplied by the natural state of being human. Other than that, I personally cannot conceive of a fixed nature or essence.

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
        >
        > No congratulations from Sartre unless I understand how I am being in-itself and being for-itself. Since I'm sufficiently satisfied with my grasp of Sartre's Bad Faith, I'm now going to spend some time with how Sartre explains what he considers the 'correct' view of in-itself for being human. What for Sartre is fixed as human essence other than existence, nothing, and freedom?
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
        >
        > > Sartre could encounter the waiter whilst serving the table and ask "what are
        > > you??"
        > >
        > > "I'm a waiter"
        > >
        > > "Aha ... and obvious case of mauvais foi". "But, what are you besides a
        > > waiter??"
        > >
        > > "I'm a father of a family"
        > >
        > > "Still mauvais foi ... a sad case". "I mean, underneath, besides these
        > > particular roles??"
        > >
        > > "Of course, I am a human being".
        > >
        > > "Congratulations".
        > >
        > > eduard
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Mary
        > > Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:28 AM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] Fixed nature
        > >
        > > We reject labels which identify us as essentially one particular thing. I am
        > > not my job, so whichever occupation I choose or find myself in and
        > > regardless of the education and training it requires, I am still not that
        > > position/role/job in-itself. It is this idea of having a fixed nature, a
        > > something in-itself, which Sartre opposes. We are being for-itself and
        > > either struggle or recoil at the thought of having the freedom of not having
        > > an identity (an in-itself) so we find ourselves in the 'project' or
        > > condition of bad faith. Sartre thinks our nature is to desire a fixed
        > > nature. But this is further complicated by the fact that others tend to
        > > label us as having a fixed nature.
        > >
        > > If I say you, eduard, are essentially a positivist or a reductionist or
        > > whatever, you reject this because you feel you are not that. If I say you
        > > are an electrical engineer, you're more likely to say this is true, but are
        > > you really only or strictly what your job entails? Aren't you first eduard,
        > > a human being who thinks and does many things besides his job? Aren't your
        > > ideas and ways of being constantly changing? To say that you perform your
        > > job/role as an electrical engineer means you are not strictly that block of
        > > identity. Even if you were to change careers, you wouldn't strictly be that
        > > new identity either. You would be free to be more than just that. Sartre
        > > means that all jobs are equal only in the sense that we still would not be
        > > identified strictly with what we do.
        > >
        > > To say I am not *that* means I am not merely a being in-itself. But it's
        > > more complicated, because if there weren't some facticity about being human,
        > > we wouldn't be able to negate it and be a being for-itself. We would merely
        > > be this block of identity. This is really what Sartre uses bad faith to
        > > explainâ€"the relationship between being in-itself and for-itself.
        > >
        > > Mary
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Mary,
        > > >
        > > > I think that part of the difficulty may be that we are dealing with
        > > > 1930’s thought. The way I see it, Sartre is describing psychology as to
        > > > mental functioning and associated behaviour. But in the 1930’s there
        > > > was very little in the way of realising that we actually used our brains
        > > > to think, so Sartre and others had to resort to labels and phraseology
        > > > which might suffice.
        > > >
        > > > But since such phraseology is disconnected from reality, it easily leads
        > > > to convoluted statements such as, "If I am a cafe waiter, this can be only
        > > > in the mode of *not being* one." That statement makes no sense, and I
        > > > can well appreciate the need for 800 pages of reading to obtain some kind
        > > > of understanding. I don’t believe that such a statement would be made
        > > > by anyone today in the 21st century.
        > > >
        > > > I read the paragraph at least 4 times now and still cannot make any sense
        > > > of it. For example, â€Å"This is the result of the fact that while I must
        > > > *play at being* a cafe waiter in order to be one, still it would be in
        > > > vain for me to play at being a diplomat or a sailor, for I would not be
        > > > one”. I think that what Sartre is saying is that a â€Å"diplomat” is a
        > > > position that requires substantial training and something to which you are
        > > > assigned. You can’t just walk into the Ministry of State building and
        > > > start acting like a diplomat as one might act as a waiter when walking
        > > > into a restaurant. But if that is the case, then Sartre weakens his
        > > > argument for mauvais foi, since the diplomat could equally confuse himself
        > > > with his role.
        > > >
        > > > I agree with your understanding of bad faith. I asked at the office, what
        > > > was the meaning of â€Å"mauvais foi”. It comes down to misrepresenting
        > > > yourself to others, as for example to have a hidden agenda. Sartre seems
        > > > to be using the term as misrepresenting yourself to yourself. In regard
        > > > to the question of whether it is possible to misrepresent yourself to
        > > > yourself, I should think that it is entirely possible. There is nothing
        > > > in the rule book of brain thinking that one has to be entirely logical and
        > > > transparent.
        > > >
        > > > I think the example of the waiter is put in the wrong sense which
        > > > compounds the difficulty. The waiter is said to be too precise and
        > > > therefore he/she has mauvais foi. But it really should be expressed the
        > > > other way around, as waiters who have mauvais foi tend to act in too
        > > > precise a manner. Not all waiters who act precisely have mauvais foi.
        > > > Neither do all beau parleurs.
        > > >
        > > > eduard
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.