How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Existentially Speaking
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Existentially Speaking

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Paul Allen Lupien
Member
since 09-09-99
Posts 116
Ferndale,Mi.USA


0 posted 09-27-1999 12:48 PM       View Profile for Paul Allen Lupien   Email Paul Allen Lupien   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Paul Allen Lupien

Hi Doreen,et all,

I do agree with some of the existential beliefs,though not all...
Agree with(1);that we are all essentially free and responsible for our own acts.
(2)that this responsibility is the source of the anguish which may result from them.
Do not agree with the belief that existance takes precedence over essence.
That is a very important exception.
I believe that our essence is a spiritual one and that all else,which exists only in the world of form,is therefore of secondary importance.
Spirit,the sole(Soul)creator of all that appears to exist,is essentially Consciousness-and that Conciousness is one of Love-the only Absolute Reality,to which we are all eternally,intrinsically connected.

All responses most welcome,

Paul

------------------
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


1 posted 09-27-1999 01:06 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Not to disagree, Paul (because I don't), but I always get really nervous when people start capitalizing concepts and making them proper nouns. Could you, perhaps, define some of those capitalized words? What do they mean to you?
Paul Allen Lupien
Member
since 09-09-99
Posts 116
Ferndale,Mi.USA


2 posted 09-27-1999 01:34 PM       View Profile for Paul Allen Lupien   Email Paul Allen Lupien   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Paul Allen Lupien

Yes,of course...fair question.I used them to imply absolute being which exists beyond time and all intellectual apprenhensions.Upper case was a way to express this without tying it into any religious dogmas-i.e;something more than us,yet not apart from us.
The next question might be:"Do I believe in a God?"My answer would depend on the definition of the word as described by the asking party.

------------------
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


3 posted 09-27-1999 10:47 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, well, we come to existentialism versus essentialism (?). Ron and I at Mia's post have an almost Idealism versus Materialism thing going. Things are going well I think. One of the things that interests me is how philosophy and philosophers may or may not have any value to the everyday lives of most people. When you mention a philosopher's name, how many people do you know that just roll their eyes -- yeah, but I gotta go to work today. Just curious.

In regard to this, (leaving my problems with existentialism alone for a moment), would the world be any different without the Absolute. Would the world be any different if Absolute Love were a non-existent (Idea) -- have I bothered Ron yet -- but there was still this thing we call love between human beings?

If we can't explain it, do we need it? I think there is a tendency to overstate a feeling that I do think most people have and turn into something that, more or less, covers everything we haven't thought yet. I'm not sure how useful this concept is.

Does that make any sense?

Brad
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


4 posted 09-27-1999 11:56 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Paul said:
quote:
I used them to imply absolute being which exists beyond time and all intellectual apprehensions.


Mmm, I was afraid it was something like that. Please, I don't mean to be impertinent, but how can any human being hope to discuss something that is, by definition, beyond time and all intellectual apprehension? I really do think I know what you mean, Paul. I just don't agree the concepts are necessarily beyond comprehension.

Brad said:
quote:
an almost Idealism versus Materialism thing going.


Was I arguing materialism? Certainly, I was using a materialistic analogy, but I'm not sure "basic human need" falls under the materialism umbrella. Then again, perhaps so. I'll definitely have to give this one more thought. But I suspect I would still have to stand by my contention that acceptance is a basic human need, just as is physical sustenance.

Brad continued:
quote:
One of the things that interests me is how philosophy and philosophers may or may not have any value to the everyday lives of most people.


One point for philosophy, zero for philosophers. I think people roll their eyes for the same reason many don't read poetry (I haven't gotten to that thread yet ) - 'cause there are far too many really poor teachers in our education system. Brad, you suggested in that other thread that perhaps educators make poetry seem too hard? How about boring! I know, in my case, it wasn't until 9th grade I found a teacher that allowed me to appreciate Shakespeare (I have since realized that you read Shakespeare to study it, but you listen to Shakespeare to enjoy it). Philosophers, I think, have suffered much the same fate at the hands of our education system. Boring!

But I gave the one point to philosophy because, yea, I do think it has value to the everyday lives of most people. The difference is, I suspect they're primarily interested in their philosophy. And I think that's okay, because a personal philosophy (like a personal goal) is without meaning until it can be articulated.

quote:
Would the world be any different if Absolute Love were a non-existent (Idea) -- have I bothered Ron yet - but there was still this thing we call love between human beings?? If we can't explain it, do we need it?


Not bothered yet.

I do think, though, that we need to at least try to explain love, and try to understand it. Have you read my poem "How Long?" Brad, questioning how long it takes to fall in love? Intrinsic to that question, and the impetus for writing it, is the question of whether "love at first sight" can exist or, perhaps closer to home, "love at first site" (Internet love). I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do know that many, many other things masquerade as love, from lust to loneliness to mutual need, and until we can with some surety say what love is we'll never be able to say what it isn't. And I think anyone who has ever experienced a broken heart would sure like the answer to the latter!

Okay, enough with the quotes. Now it's my turn with a question. I also have a poem called "True Love Is Not A Common Thing," which pretty much gives away the theme. But I do believe True Love exists, albeit rarely. So here's the question: if there is an Absolute Love, and if there is such a thing as True Love, what if any difference exists between the two?
Paul Allen Lupien
Member
since 09-09-99
Posts 116
Ferndale,Mi.USA


5 posted 09-28-1999 12:15 AM       View Profile for Paul Allen Lupien   Email Paul Allen Lupien   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Paul Allen Lupien

Of course there will be no resolution to such communications as these.However,they are amusing,so I shall throw one more dart at the board.Prefacing my remarks with a self-quote:"words are designed to confuse us,so that they may often amuse us."
The essence of truth is found in being,not in thinking.Experience of this exposes one to other realms of existance-one which words can never contain or describe.However,intellect does have its place and to that end I offer these replies:

As to the value of philosophy:
If applied to human interaction,philosophy can lead to empathy and kindness.Its lack of popularity can be equated with the selfishness and superficiality of these times.Its true value,though unappreciated,is not diminished by the masses who could not care less.
"Would the world be any different without the Absolute"
I believe the answer would be yes,Absolutely.
"If we can't explain it,do we need it?"
Ask Edison,or any child in pain who needs an answer.
As for "useful concepts"-they only bring rewards if they are investigated with an unceasing passion to learn and to grow.This,I think,is historically accurate and socially vital.
I was unable to understand your reference to "overstating a feeling that most people have and turn it into something else"etc.

Having said all this,I have truly enjoyed our inter-facing and so I am,

Very respectfully yours,
Paul



------------------
Paul Allen Lupien
Member
since 09-09-99
Posts 116
Ferndale,Mi.USA


6 posted 09-28-1999 12:47 AM       View Profile for Paul Allen Lupien   Email Paul Allen Lupien   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Paul Allen Lupien

Hi Ron,actually I was not writing about absolute being,per se,but about existentialism.I did refer to absolute being,but beyond describing it as consciousness and love,no verbal description was offered.The formation of my opinion(s)having been based on the non-intellectual experiences of Kutasha meditation,no such description would be possible.
To be precise,I cannot say that I actually believe in anything.I just have a strongish tendancy,based upon my personal inner experiences,to keep investigating the possibility of a higher form of being than human.
Why were you "afraid" of any reference to the D(d)ivine?Does that imply ignorance or
weakness to you?Hope not.One must keep an open mind until all the questions have been
resolved.That is only being scientific.Isn't it?



------------------
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


7 posted 09-28-1999 01:35 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Why were you "afraid" of any reference to the D(d)ivine?


You misunderstood, Paul. My reference was to the "beyond all time," etc. To me, that does not necessarily connote the divine.

Actually, in your first post, I was originally struck by the similarity between your three premises and Christianity. The major difference being too few people recognize your second premise as being at the very foundation of Christianity, and too often use its obverse to discount God. (The "I can't believe in a god that would allow all this suffering to exist" argument.)

[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 09-28-1999).]
Paul Allen Lupien
Member
since 09-09-99
Posts 116
Ferndale,Mi.USA


8 posted 09-28-1999 11:17 AM       View Profile for Paul Allen Lupien   Email Paul Allen Lupien   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Paul Allen Lupien

I absolutely agree with your last post.Hasn't this has been a wonderful exchange of ideas?

Thanks so much for the input.Really enjoyed it.

PAL

------------------
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


9 posted 09-29-1999 02:41 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

PAL

I think most people feel intuitively that there is something else out there, something more than what they see around them but I think it is a big difference between realizing difference and thinking the absolute.

To jump a bit, I feel that one of the major points of Western civilization is this belief in transcendence, in spirituality, in permanence and that these 'things' are always superior to the mundane, the material, and the temporal.

(quick aside: Do mundane and material mean the same thing?)

Actually, I have no problems with spirituality or transcendence (but I don't think they're always 'better'). I do have a problem with absolutes and permanence. I think it's a huge jump from different states of consciousness and alternate worlds to an understanding of everything and eternity.

I also believe that the human mind can always conceive of something beyond everything, beyond eternity if we ever got that far to say I now understand all things in all times. I think the human mind and it's ability to create (ah, now we're back to poetry) will always surpass the passive concepts of Absolutes and of discovering what is already there. We can create what will be there.

Does anybody see where I'm going yet?

Brad

PS Have yet to get to the love poems yet, Ron, will try soon.

PPS I also see the dichotomy between thought and emotion as false.
Paul Allen Lupien will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Existentially Speaking Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors