But musch more difficult to act in accord with such a realization

On 3/24/09 8:29 PM, "armando baeza" <[email protected]> wrote:

It's very easy to conclude that Nature is not under our control.
mando

On Mar 24, 2009, at 5:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> In order to think as an unattached thinkers we have to separate
> ourselves from
> human ego as much as practically possible.
> And of course if cancer exists it is 'needed'  by biochemical
> conditions but
> not individual desire.
> Why it is so difficult to understand?
> Boris Shoshensky
>

____________________________________________

Saul Ostrow | Visual Arts & Technologies Environment Chair, Sculpture

Voice: 216-421-7927 | [email protected] | www.cia.edu<http://www.cia.edu/>

The Cleveland Institute of Art | 11141 East Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44106



---------- Original Message ----------

> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Boris claims if X exists...
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:12:04 EDT
>
> I despise the effect Heidegger achieved by his use of profound-
> seeming,
> occult, opaque, and unexplained terminology. The line 'What exists
> must be
> needed'
> is, call it, bogus. I was making a much grosser distinction than
> William
> explores in his more subtle response.
>
> E.g. how many things do you eat in a day that you desire but, in no
> interesting sense of the word, "need"? We all of us have given
> things --
> toys,
> photos,
> jewelry, tickets to the ball game -- that are desired but not needed.
>
> I'd recommend that we also maintain a distinction between
> "necessary" and
> "needed".   Certain inexorable biochemical facts may mean that
> various events
> necessarily left us with cancer or a heart condition, but it seems
> silly and
> vacuous to say portentously, "If your cancer exists, it was needed."
>
>
> In a message dated 3/24/09 11:01:27 AM, [email protected] writes:
>
>
>> My hunch is that Boris was writing casually to make a point of
>> distinction
>> between human and cockroach attributes, whatever they may be.  I
>> am not so
>> sure that clear distinctions like that can be made when we can't
>> get inside
>> the organism of another species with respect to nerve responses,
>> etc. He
>> concludes that cockroaches don't make art.  That's a purely
>> rhetorical
>> comment
>> for effect since we don't know what nerve vibrations, etc., might
>> qualify
> as
>> cockroach art for cockroaches. That is not as ridiculous as it
>> sounds since
>> we
>> know that many species do display themselves in artful ways for
>> mating
>> advantages.  In fact, see the science section of today's NYTimes
>> for an
>> article about evolved features of insects and animals that have no
>> purpose
>> other than display for mating advantage.
>>
>> But more to the point:  The two concepts desire and need are
>> complex enough
>> to
>> require close analysis.  Does need precede desire or follow it or
>> are the
>> two
>> states merely different on the basis of amplification?  Aristotle
>> said that
>> desire is a condition of sensing and fantasy.  My own idea is that
>> need and
>> desire (I prefer desire as willful or concscious  desire and need as
>> unconscious desire) are constructed subjectively and thus filter
>> or shape
>> our
>> sensing of experience.
>>
>> WC
>>
>> --- On Mon, 3/23/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>>> Subject: Boris claims if X exists...
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 11:31 PM
>>> Boris claims if X exists, it must be
>>> NEEDED. Can't anyone on our forum think
>>> of a rebuttal to this? (Maybe try distinguishing 'needed'
>>> from 'desired'?)
>>
>
>
> **************
> Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make meals for Under
> $10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002)
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Learn how to earn more. Get a Marketing Degree online or in person.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/
> BLSrjpYRbhtO56WuhPDJWR7EZ5fsQ0
> tbVr8hFSts5UkoGIPVbeKaS54yAG8/



--

Reply via email to