I find Sarte can be difficult to understand. Here are a couple of his views.

Sarte

" To believe is to know that one believes, and to know that one believes is no longer to believe. Thus to believe is not to believe any longer... This in unity of one and the same non-thetic self consciousness. non-thetic consciousness is not to know. thus the non-thetic consciousness ( of ) believing is destructive of belief. But at the same time the very law of the pre-reflective cogito implies that the being of believing ought to be the consciousness of believing. "



" Evidently it is necessary to find the foundation of all nagation in anihilation which is exercised in the very heart of immanence; in absolute immanence, in the pure subjectvity of the insantaneous cogito. We must discover the original act by which man is to himself his own nothingness. What must be the nature of consciousness in order that man in consciousness and in terms of consciousness should arise in the world as the being who is his own nothingness and by whom nothingness comes into the world. "

-Jean-Paul Sarte

At times, it seems to me that he debates with himself. And at other times it seems that he debates with Descartes. Most of the time I just feel a kind of darkness about his writing, but I'm not sure why.

Anyone care to discuss?

He sounds lonely.- Alot of speech pertaining to nothingness is a sign of an empty soul. He's searching and trying to 'reason' it out.-

Shameless plug......ready?.........Christ rules.

Better than a new puppy.

I think he saw things from an unusual perspective. He internalized a sort of 'overhead' view and then tried to reconstruct it to make sense to others. I'm sure he spent a great deal of time reflecting what he internalized, but I don't think there was an emotion of lonliness. There is a difference between being alone and being lonely.

I think most existential philosophy is rather dark, but I don't mean in an evil way. Dark like the depth of a black hole. Difficult to understand without a little light.

I was hoping for a little light.

OK- To explain my way, he actually has it right. please tolerate my explanation. At least the first quote for now.

Adam was not 'self conscious' he existed without ever having made a coscious choice of believing. He Existed and flowed in his existance without ever knowing differently. God was a part of his being, but he never actually had to think about it. If you have Gods Spirit, you would maybe understand this. To be self coscious is like death. Adam exsperienced this when his blissful non coscious nothingness, free of not even knowing worry, suddenly was removed (sin). He was taken back like"what the heck", looked down,- and realized that he had been'naked' all along. This same Spirit that dwelled in him invites us to move in that same vein once again as He has reconciled that first withdrawal that took place. I have moved in that spirit before, it defies reasoning and gives you a peace' beyond' mere belief. It moves past your brain and takes you over. This "nothingness" is actually a blissful removal of having to use our tiny brains to comprehend it. Knowing is one thing, inner assurance is like a nothingness because it removes what is hindering you. Your' mind.

Nothingness, or bliss, is not a destination. It is a flow you move in. This is how I understand and relate. to feel God move you have to let go of the whiskers, so to speak.

I understand your reasoning. I've heard the "what a burden from my shoulders" speech more times than I can count. For those who find the questions of this life burdensome, I can certainly see why the kind of peace you speak of would be sought out.

Personally I find a great joy in deliberating the unknown. I find too much peace to be boring. I don't really want answers handed to me, the joy of finding them out for myself is my motivation for continuing in this life.

As far as this part of the quote goes:
"" To believe is to know that one believes, and to know that one believes is no longer to believe. Thus to believe is not to believe any longer... "

If one holds a belief, and consiously accepts that this belief is, by definition, a belief in that which has no proof, have they then made the leap to making that belief concrete? Is it then no longer a belief but a truth that one's 'thought' has brought to life?

The line between believing and knowing seems to me to be in question here... when a belief becomes a known with a person, that person has accepted this as fact within themselves... at which point in time the subconscious acts accordingly, to what has been "learned"...

Perhaps he is contemplating the notion of one's true self becoming distant from it's host by means of believing that which is or was not true of one when born... becoming that which you are not by belief in that which you are not... that reality would then be a "false" one... and the true "nothing" of one's self hidden away... forgotten in all conscious thought...

The "nothing" of one, to me, indicates the pure and raw unexposed person that we all are at birth...

What may we have "lost" by accepting that which does not fit?

I tried. It fit my exsperience. What I have and the miracles I have exsperienced is too much to be merely 'explained'. Like visiting the Grand Canyon, until you exsperience it the words just make it sound "cheap".

Life is not burdensome as you so safely assumed either. It has all the potential of being fantastic. Searching for truth is a full time job. Knowing it is freedom.

Joy in diliberating is another way of saying that you live by feeding your ego. Knowlege creates pride which puffs up. Not trying to insult you. I know the feeling and exileration of debate. But in comparison well....the Grand Canyon thing.

Plus my "belief" has made miracles happen. So yeah, it actually "IS" concrete. My spine was crooked and I felt Gods hand enter my spine and jolt it back in place. Doesn't get any 'realer'.

The problem is in the quote itself.

It begins with a spiritual reception for the reader and ends with a different tension.

As though...come hither, dear one...and then...ah hah! far enough.

Bait and switch.

Temptation and defeat.

Whereas something like this engages and leaves creativity to the user,

faith leads to belief leads to revelation leads to knowledge leads to understanding leads to wisdom leads to equity leads to truth.

Now, in this, the challenge is its use, and the artistry is in its motion. The hook is the passion required to test it further.

That is fluid and that is free. No walls.

Wouldee....will you adopt me?

no, but it will be ok.

this has always been a problem with me and people who talk of faith. Faith is believing in something with out knowledge. So that means once you have knowledge of something you no longer have faith. So when ever I hear people talk about miracles I cringe cause If they did have God interfere in their life then he is a known quantity he is no longer something you can have faith in. So believing in miracle's, or any other type of interference by God would have to destroy faith.


So it always seems to me the most religious are the least faithful. They will destroy what they love.

yup yup yup uh huh uh huh

out of the mouths of babes

Rabbit!!! I just dropped a bomb on a Lizard!!!

It is debatable in Creation v. The Gestapo.

I call it "the Vein of King Kong's Retreat in Bloody Repose"

A must read for the closed mind.

I'm sorry I don't follow any of that

In the mid 1800s of European society, Luigi Pirandello danced in existential thought in a comical and participatory manner.

His stories and plays provoked thought while entertaining.

The lightness of his heart was evident in his works.

Obscure as his writngs remain, they are engaging in their appeal.

One favorite of mine is " Right you are if you think you are"

In Italian, it is humorous as a title. It doesn't translate as well as the story does.

It stages the interplay of three peoples observations of the same reality with incredibly different interpretations of the same sequence of events.

The observations of the story by the reader offers as many as the readers themselves have of the author's point.

Ad infinitum and you have Luigi's perspective.

Another one is titled, "A Ball of String".

My exposure to his work defined for me the essence of existentialism.

The irony and humor for me is that it includes spirituality and provokes one to embrace life not measured by time but by experience.

I still embrace his perspective today and smile when I ponder his entrance upon my soul.

I feel his life.


Onward existential soldier, marching as to truth.....

ty for the enlightenment

When I think about it, it thinks about me. How did I know it?

Ephratan Arba-elleh

Faith can be a combination of known and unknown as well. The realness I exsperience and physical evidences still hold very much that I don't understand., but it is in fact so real that I trust and have faith in the parts that I 'don't comprehend.

You made faith sound like a "dream" of some sort, and perhaps to many it is. Sad.

Not a dream but the all powerful stuff that religion should be built on. That God exists because I have faith he does and that is all I need. No more proof is necessary. And I would argue proof of God destroys faith.



sorry if Im straying from your subject Redykeulous

faith is like words spoken to the heart, much as feet are to walking.

I'm taking a walk now.

One step at a time.

I already know that ground is under my feet.

Let's imagine that I am walking on water.

I'm walking not swimming.

Just like ground, water is sufficient.


I take a step.

I put my weight on the foot.

I lean forward aand stand.

Do I sink?

Now, I must take another step.

I did it once, I can do it again.

I am walking.

Where I go is up to me.

If I stop taking steps, I am not walking.

I am standing now.

I am going nowhere.

So, it must be true, that faith without works is dead.

I am justified by faith, not by my works.

It is faith that moves me, and death that stills me.


Peace.