Actually it is not as easy to conclude as it seems. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Boris claims if X exists... Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:29:31 -0700
>>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 > ---------- 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/
