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

RE: [existlist] superhuman

Expand Messages
  • Eduard Alf
    Bill, hmmmmm ... crack whore ... do you think you have breasts? eduard ... From: Bill Harris [mailto:bhvwd@netins.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:24
    Message 1 of 72 , Feb 26, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill,

      hmmmmm ... "crack whore" ... do you think you have breasts?

      eduard
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bill Harris [mailto:bhvwd@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:24 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [existlist] superhuman


      Eduard, OK, I will attempt being literate, but if this turns me into a
      crank
      head or crack whore I will blame you. Bill


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Eduard Alf
      Bill, Right on. Existentialism provides a certain perspective for a narrow area of human outlook. Much of what Sartre says, is based upon a rejection of
      Message 72 of 72 , Mar 20, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill,

        Right on.

        Existentialism provides a certain perspective for a narrow area of human
        outlook. Much of what Sartre says, is based upon a rejection of society
        coming out of WW2. The 1950s was a time in which people just felt that they
        should get on with their lives and since the morality [especially in Europe]
        was bankrupt, many felt they had to make their own choices and future.

        But we now live in a different world. It has been more than 50 years since
        WW2. The baby boomers amongst us [myself included] now see a possibility of
        improvement, but Existentialism and most other philosophies do not help us
        into our future. In the 1950s, we chose to forget the world and sleep for a
        while with Eisenhower. In the 1960s, we woke up and rebelled, thinking we
        could create our own peace. In the 1970s and 80s we went back to the world
        and consumed, thinking that this might lead to happiness. But happiness did
        not come so in the 1990s we reflected upon our lives. I believe that there
        is now a desire for something new in the way of philosophy. We have an
        inkling of what it is, but have yet to put on paper. Perhaps it is time for
        a new messiah to lead us.

        Existentialism deadends [a "cul de sac"]. Perhaps we are not inclined to
        look to some deity, but we need a better religious outlook. I think that
        religion is the focus for the 21st century.

        eduard
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bill Harris [mailto:bhvwd@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:50 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Fountainhead


        Biggie, I have voiced my opinion on res spiritu many times, as a hobbie
        they
        are boring, as a life they are dillusional. Then again I get angry at
        Lewis for constantly puking the masters back upon us. I have a strong
        opinion that we could explain a significant revision of modern thought.
        Since Camus and Sartre a great deal has happned, many things discovered.
        We
        spend hours discussing essence and existance-, but do not integrate the
        huge
        effects of modern genetics upon such a debate When I first came to this
        group I thought we could explain most causality in the cosmos. Yet we
        spend time argueing about diety and morality I did not mind the digression
        into absurdism because I think we illuminated a possible wormhole in
        reality
        To my satisfaction I think we found absurdity to be a dead end. I have
        been
        listening in on the Fallenworld group, those people are lost. I doubt
        they
        have the knowledge base to sort out their existance. Between ourselves, in
        this group we have enough science background to discuss and comprehend new
        discoveries Who will try to theorize a workable world built with the
        knowledge and technology we can count on .? What extension of existential
        thought can give us a progressive survival plan? We have proclaimed .
        ourselves free to think but we only think about the past. Because thought
        is protected as free speach does not mean all thoughts are equil. The
        discussions I have outside this group are so ensnared in political
        correctness as to be rendered useless. The next fifty years, as the oil
        runs
        out, will stress the old systems beyond their tolerances. World lasse
        fare
        capitalism may be a short term solution but opening new markets is a
        finite
        business. Being 55 I doubt I will see the solution or the cateclism. This
        group has given me cause to think we have as much chance as any to make
        progress toward a happy, sustainable world. Is that a rational, pragmatic
        goal? Bill. ---- Original Message -----
        From: "iambiguously" <iambiguously@...>
        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:43 PM
        Subject: [existlist] Re: Fountainhead


        > Bill,
        >
        > If Ayn Rand wanted your opinion she would give it to you.
        >
        > Perhaps in the beginning she championed independent thought; but by
        > the time Branden came on the scene and converted his business acumen
        > into a multi million dollar Objectivist franchise, the seminars were
        > mass producing the same "independent mind" over and over and over
        > again: Rand's.
        >
        > Is it sad more than pathetic being an Objectivist these days? To
        > think that objective moral parameters actually exist to encompass
        > abortion or homosexuality or gender relationships bespeaks a mind as
        > minimalism incarnate. Only imagining a "spiritual" explanation makes
        > less sense, eh?
        >
        > Biggie
        >
        >
        > --- In existlist@y..., "Bill Harris" <bhvwd@n...> wrote:
        > > biggie, Supposition about the philosophical placement of a fictional
        > > character is several degrees removed from the day to day lives we
        > live. I
        > > guess I look at the Fountainhead as a snapshot of mid- 20th.
        > century
        > > thought. Post ww2 militarism was the dominant thinking while
        > intellectuals
        > > were struggling for any part of the spotlight. War based industry
        > was
        > > becomming a private sector juggernaught but the military
        > organisational
        > > structure remained. I dont think the theme of the book is
        > existentialism, it
        > > is individualism. The author obviously hated the collectivist mind
        > and
        > > wished to show us a path away from our war time regimentation. She
        > took the
        > > moral high ground and gave us a character of high intellect and
        > creativity.
        > > I do not think she was a philosopher as say Sartre. She was a
        > reactionary
        > > author who built heroic characters to fit her ideal model. Roark
        > had some
        > > exit traits but a stubborn professional man is far from an exist
        > hero and
        > > thinker. As to form follows function, the form is constructed
        > before the
        > > function starts, Without prior experience it is only a brick and
        > morter
        > > plan. Now we build open spaces and let the user fill them up, not a
        > bad
        > > idea, but the architect as master puppeteer loses face. . Bill
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@v...>
        > > To: <existlist@y...>
        > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:27 PM
        > > Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: Fountainhead
        > >
        > >
        > > > Biggie,
        > > >
        > > > I am sorry, but I don't understand your point. What are you
        > trying to
        > > say?
        > > >
        > > > eduard
        > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > From: iambiguously [mailto:iambiguously@y...]
        > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:17 PM
        > > > To: existlist@y...
        > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Fountainhead
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Ed,
        > > >
        > > > Roark, an existentialist? That jolt you just felt was not an
        > > > earthquake...it was Rand bellowing at the top of her lungs [or,
        > at
        > > > least, what's left of them] "You God damn fool!"
        > > >
        > > > You see, existentialism does not pluck Reason and Morality from
        > a
        > > > tree like a couple of apples. Instead, it embeds them in the
        > actual
        > > > existential trajectory of each and every one of us from the
        > cradle to
        > > > the grave. Thus when Ayn insisted that "form must follow
        > function" in
        > > > architecture [just before those dolts insisted on expressing
        > their
        > > > own individuality too], she was being particularly self-
        > ighteous and
        > > > obtuse. And few combinations in philosophy are more egregous
        > than
        > > > that, eh?
        > > >
        > > > There is no way to know how we ought to think, feel or behave
        > around
        > > > others. All moral choices are essentially interchangable. So, go
        > > > figure out the best possible way to live with that.
        > > >
        > > > Biggie
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In existlist@y..., "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@v...> wrote:
        > > > > Bill,
        > > > >
        > > > > The book doesn't add too much more on the subject. The basic
        > > > premise is
        > > > > that the intellectual property belongs to the individual whose
        > > > creativity is
        > > > > the source of that property. The advisory group run by
        > Ellsworth
        > > > Toohey
        > > > > decided to redo the design whilst Howard Roark was away on the
        > > > cruise.
        > > > >
        > > > > The thing to keep in mind is that the court scene was in
        > regard to
        > > > criminal
        > > > > law. That is, the issue of whether it was a crime to destroy
        > ones
        > > > own work.
        > > > > The aspect of civil law is separate and payment for any
        > damages was
        > > > > something that Roark accepted. I think that Roger Enright
        > [Roark's
        > > > first
        > > > > big client] actually did the paying.
        > > > >
        > > > > I take Roark as being an existentialist because he was
        > prepared to
        > > > accept
        > > > > the consequences of his decisions. After designing the
        > Enright
        > > > > apartment/condominium building he could not get more clients
        > and so
        > > > he built
        > > > > gas stations and the like. In other words, he was prepared
        > to wait
        > > > for
        > > > > clients who only had small projects, but were the type of
        > people who
        > > > > recognized his talent. They were his type of people ... also
        > > > prepared to
        > > > > take a gamble to get the best. The book, as well as the
        > movie, has
        > > > sort of
        > > > > an undertow of people who are all individualists. As is
        > Domingue
        > > > Francon
        > > > > and Gail Wynand. You can see this in their conversation ...
        > as if
        > > > each
        > > > > could finish the sentences of the other. The book provides
        > much
        > > > more detail
        > > > > of their histories, such as Wynand's origins in Hell's
        > Kitchen.
        > > > Wynand
        > > > > kills himself, because he of the group of three is the only
        > one who
        > > > > compromises his ethic by allowing the mob to take over his
        > paper.
        > > > It is
        > > > > interesting that he considers the bones of his paper empire
        > as the
        > > > proper
        > > > > resource for creation of the skyscraper which contracts with
        > Roark
        > > > to build.
        > > > > The dead giving rise to the living.
        > > > >
        > > > > The book also gives more detail of how Toohey was able to get
        > all
        > > > his own
        > > > > people hired on the Wynand's paper. An example, of the slow
        > > > infiltration of
        > > > > the mob. One could also read this as the infiltration of
        > > > communists into
        > > > > American society. The movie was done in 1949, so there is
        > > > connection in a
        > > > > sense.
        > > > >
        > > > > The book has another character, named Stephen [I think ... it
        > has
        > > > been a
        > > > > long time since I read it]. Stephen is subcontracted by
        > Roark to
        > > > do a
        > > > > sculpture for a temple his is building. He uses Dominique as
        > the
        > > > model.
        > > > > But Stephen is weaker than Roark and he has a continuing
        > dream. It
        > > > is of
        > > > > him locked in a cell and then the door opens and in walks a
        > > > mindless monster
        > > > > who is to kill him. His point is that no matter how eloquent
        > his
        > > > arguements
        > > > > may be to save his life, the monster [or perhaps rather a
        > zombie]
        > > > cannot
        > > > > hear him or at least is mindless enough so that he cannot
        > > > understand the
        > > > > words. It is an example of how individualist has no chance
        > against
        > > > the mob.
        > > > >
        > > > > You can watch that movie over and over and still get new
        > messages
        > > > out of it.
        > > > > It is a beautiful piece for discussion.
        > > > >
        > > > > eduard
        > > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > > From: Bill Harris [mailto:bhvwd@n...]
        > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:53 PM
        > > > > To: existlist@y...
        > > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] population reduction
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Eduard, I agree he was an early Exist. Notice how his life
        > was
        > > > totally
        > > > > delineated by his work. He was not viewed as an individual
        > person
        > > > he was
        > > > > seen as an individualistic archetect. His moral
        > constraints ,
        > > > those of a
        > > > > professional man of the early 50`s, were fully operant.
        > Someone
        > > > in this
        > > > > group said exist philosophy was more an attitude and at the
        > time
        > > > of this
        > > > > story it was little more than an attitude of
        > individualism. In
        > > > the book
        > > > > did
        > > > > he give more direct reason for bombing the project? That
        > act put
        > > > him
        > > > > outside the constraints of professionalism, a free act. Was
        > his
        > > > motive the
        > > > > prior breach of professional trust , or was it a more
        > radical and
        > > > general
        > > > > act of personal justification?Either way he should and
        > would have
        > > > done
        > > > > time.
        > > > > Other miscreants should have been convicted of breach of
        > contract
        > > > and
        > > > > conspiracy to defraud intellectual property. I have seen
        > similar
        > > > > situations
        > > > > and know people who went away for similar acts. If
        > > > existentialists are to
        > > > > become a majority in the world there must remain equil
        > justice
        > > > under law.
        > > > > Each man a law unto himself is anarchy. Any mans morality
        > over
        > > > another is
        > > > > tyrrany. Only democratically sanctioned law will work. Bill
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > > > ADVERTISEMENT
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        > > >
        > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
        > > >
        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        > > >
        > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
        > > >
        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > >
        > > >
        >
        >
        >
        > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        >
        > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT




        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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