Continued Studies - 02/03/2005 ("Anguish" & The Slings Of Arrows?)

PROXIMITY GESTATION

Continued Notes
From The
Independent Studies
Of
David A. Archer
02/15/1968
Observations
Pertaining To
Social Consistencies
Within The Idea
Of
Proximity Gestation
(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

02/03/2005 – Notes On Sartre’s “Existentialism”

Continuing with “Existentialism;” I do not see where “anguish” is a mandatory aspect. Even if this type of statement is in regard to the timbre of decision making in the most magnified sense. I believe that such metaphysical “tone” of such moments isn’t necessarily bound to anguish. Decisions are made from one second to the next sans angst/anguish. Most assuredly it is that when a person must choose between two things, that one of those things will not be a part of the direction after that decision, save for resonance of said decision.
This doesn’t mean that anguish is altogether guaranteed. I guess, through such a perspective as is put forward in Sartre’s presentation- the very act of compromise is a product of anguish, of an extended version – sustained long enough to put forward a third alternative to choosing one thing or the other. But then in the sense Sartre seems to imply “anguish (being that point of decision),” what proof does he have that it is what he labels it as?

In my opinion what he is referring to in that instance is a type of “metaphysical friction” that is produced in the action of interactive connectivity – the exchange of information in all that such a moment of decision utilizes. That focal point of concentrated activity which he labels anguish, is neither good nor bad in the real sense that it is (in regard to the meaning of anguish).

It is a part of the process of making that decision more in the likeness of the metaphysical influence of information movement. What he calls “anguish” in that manner is nothing more than the “glow” of thought.

Such “anguish” is to the person in that instance, as warmth is to an internal combustion engine.
Anguish, in my opinion regarding such, is present no further than the confined- express instant of “one but not the other (if such dilemma even should arise).”

Consideration between the “two” doesn’t qualify as anguish in my perspective.

It seems that Sartre is trying to claim all that is involved in such consideration, as anguish. The weighing of the situation, the projected considerations of possible outcome/variables.

To me these are more associated with the action of thought as I have described it. Further it seems, especially in the example he uses with “Abraham,” his vein smacks of Shakespeare… “To suffer the slings and arrows….” And as I read his description of a military officers level of responsibility and a supposed “anguish,” what I see is a description of indecision – the kind that does get ten or fourteen or twenty men killed.

In my opinion, any leader that makes a decision and then allows for anguish from other options to effect his/her stance pertaining to that decision, should probably reconsider their profession. Especially those responsible for the lives of others.

In that type of a leader, anguish should go no farther than the moment a decision is made pertaining to a specific instance. If “anguish” is present following a decision in such people, then it is that such is a lack of confidence in their own decision making, insight, foresight and knowledge of a given situation.

Some may say that in regard to life or death situations, that my stance there would be seen as “cold and unfeeling” and without regard for the situation and lives at stake. My opinion is that indecision such as described in painting an image of anguish in Sartre’s work, is what really contains a disregard for the seriousness of such situations.

Historically it is indecision that makes for that danger in such situations. Hesitation in the manner of second guessing, is the real “cold hearted” element in those heated life and death moments such as an officer commanding troops.

This in no way suggests that something beyond said decision may transpire, it simply means that hesitating on “options” past a time allotted to consider them, is detrimental. Especially in those situations of life and death. Factually in such decisions, with the decision maker feeling “anguish,” it is most likely that the “decision maker” would not be pleased with his/her own decision on themselves. This indicates a removal from the situation being decided on. A true lack of empathy for those which the decision effects…..perhaps knowing that they would make a different decision if it were themselves being decided for at the level of “life and death.”