that one can know for sure what another person's meanings are
including the projection of masterplans. Or, that it is necessary to
point out that people have differing views because one is sure that
others are not so aware.
Obviously someone has 'conceived' these beliefs and couched them as
questions for others to answer.
On Aug 29, 3:07 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hm. I see. Would it somehow be conceivable to you that your masterplan is
> what it is, namely your masterplan? Which then would allow for the option of
> you not understanding paradox'es meaning/intention? But I agree with you
> that he could have written that his response was a continuation of your
> exchange of worldviews in order to make it absolutely clear that he is not
> you.
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:18 AM, ornamentalmind
> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "...Why would you not accept this
> > semantics? " - gabby
>
> > Because it was not what I had intended. I fully accepted that his
> > interpretation was his interpretation. And, as appears to be the case,
> > he didn't understand my meaning/intention. The use of the term
> > 'semantics' here implied that we both were using words in apparently
> > different ways.
>
> > On Aug 28, 2:40 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hm, Orn. I thought paradox'es thought was quite appropriate in its
> > > formulation. The "well of disillusionment" can also be seen as a
> > complexity
> > > reduction to one point. No depth, no up, only flat constructedness. The
> > > point "where one begins to see things as they actually are" would then
> > mean
> > > shutting your eyes to the complexity of life. Why would you not accept
> > this
> > > semantics?
>
> > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:54 AM, ornamentalmind
> > > <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > > "Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have
> > > > thought... " – paradox
>
> > > > IF you somehow interpreted my having said "Relativism and
> > > > deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the well of
> > > > disillusionment." as a call for blindness, nothing could be further
> > > > from the truth.
>
> > > > Perhaps it is the semantics involved with the term 'disillusionment'.
> > > > If so, in an attempt at clarification, this term to me is fairly high
> > > > up the ladder of levels of consciousness. In fact, it is very close to
> > > > where one begins to see things as they actually are. The term itself
> > > > means that one is no longer held by the trance of illusions. And, in
> > > > this context, such a realization compared to how most people apprehend
> > > > the world before reaching being disillusioned, can be quite painful –
> > > > thus the reference to depths of a well. Here, even though such pain
> > > > has always been part of the psyche; at this level, one who is 'waking
> > > > up' is no longer anesthetized to their ego (illusion) pain… it is
> > > > being felt quite strongly consciously for the first time.
>
> > > > So here, with the awareness of pain, one actually is able to begin to
> > > > open one's eyes metaphorically.
>
> > > > As an aside, Sartre's novel, "Nausea", is an example of the psyche
> > > > reaching this particular level of consciousness. And, as most are
> > > > aware, Jean-Paul was opening his eyes rather than closing them. Thus
> > > > it can be said that this level of transition is where the awareness of
> > > > the emptiness of life is quite acute.
>
> > > > On Aug 27, 10:57 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have
> > > > > thought...
>
> > > > > On Aug 27, 3:13 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the
> > > > > > well of disillusionment.
>
> > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois
> > morality
> > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I
> > take
> > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To
> > abandon
> > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical
> > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low
> > and
> > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and
> > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally
> > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering
> > a
> > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder
> > what
> > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any
> > > > 'right'
> > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned
> > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that
> > is
> > > > > > > help with her distress.
>
> > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free
> > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved
> > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') -
> > one
> > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to
> > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an
> > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer
> > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could
> > replace
> > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with
> > some
> > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the
> > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can
> > be
> > > > > > > in this sense.
>
> > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful
> > review
> > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example
> > would
> > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this
> > > > view
> > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet
> > > > what
> > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that
> > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt -
> > even
> > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt'
> > and
> > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the
> > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of
> > debt
> > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be.
> > We
> > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about
> > > > debt
> > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding
> > history.
> > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least
> > in
> > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, we
> > could
> > > > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better
> > > > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of
> > 'return' -
> > > > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things
> > through -
> > > > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality'
> > in
> > > > > > > that.
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all.
> > > > Makes
> > > > > > > > a change huh!
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick
> > in
> > > > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when
> > you
> > > > think
> > > > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but
> > then
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education,
> > religion,
> > > > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and
> > expectations
> > > > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out
> > the
> > > > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-)
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody
> > who
> > > > thinks
> > > > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight.
>
> > > > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of
> > deity,
> > > > and the
> > > > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious
> > faith
> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not?
> > > > Culture does,
> > > > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the
> > intent to
> > > > outline
> > > > > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's
> > professor
> > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate
> > than
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less
> > cripples
> > > > morality,
> > > > > > > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The
> > > > weakness
> > > > > > > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle
> > hardly
> > > > shows
> > > > > > > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to
> > > > protect
> > > > > > > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can
> > hope
> > > > for is some
> > > > > > > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral
> > because so
> > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral
> > on
> > > > grounds
> > > > > > > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of
> > fornication.
> > > > We might
> > > > > > > > > > > think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get
> > on
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > doing our best in difficult situations that need
> > decision.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <
> > leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other
> > way
> > > > around!
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comments:
Post a Comment