... wrote: Jim R., Why do you write about what you ve never experienced? My point was that humour is the transistion to B. You brought upMessage 1 of 74 , Feb 26, 2007View Source--- In email@example.com, "James Rovira"
Jim R., Why do you write about what you've never experienced?
My point was that humour is the transistion to B.
You brought up humour being related to only A, and something to do
with human growth, or what not. I was trying to "enlighten" those
who haven't. If you haven't understood this transistion I would not
fault you in the least in reading those who have. If you want more
information about the transition, please, let me know. Bill
> When did I say anything about a "system," Bill? In ConcludingUnscientific
> Postscript, Climacus describes humor as the transitional phasebetween
> Religiousness A and B. That is all. If I sounded like I wassystematizing,
> that is because Climacus sounds like he is systematizing in CUP.But at the
> same time, he mocks those who reduce themselves to elements withina system.
> You've read CUP, right? Or are you just quoting what other people
> about it again?40yahoogroups.com>,
> Jim R
> On 2/25/07, Bill <billybob98103@...> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org<kierkegaardians%
> > "James Rovira"create
> > <jamesrovira@> wrote:
> > Jim R., Sorry, but humour is not a part of any system you would
> > to explain your life, or the life another. That is merely theviolence
> > of "double-mindedness" that puts a happy face on being asystematizer.
> > Instead, it is what is "left over" from any limitations of asystem to
> > explain the finite world. It is religiousness A that cannot overcome
> > its immanence that prevents realising Religiousness B.
JS, I just posted something to JR that was, in fact, also meant as a response to you summarizing my general position with respect to our First Chunk discourse.Message 74 of 74 , Mar 9, 2007View Source
JS, I just posted something to JR that was, in fact, also meant as a response to you summarizing my general position with respect to our First Chunk discourse. So, I had not abandoned the quest completely, just thought I would approach it from another angle; like backing off to the general view instead of being bogged down in the particulars.I was just this morning working on the second chunk, which I found interesting, but difficult. The difficulty is one of finding the best mode of response, but I shall light upon one and toss another chunk at you. ----willy
--- In email@example.com, "jimstuart46" <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
> Dear Willy,
> In your post 5543 ("Chunk-Chunk"), you misunderstand what I
> wrote in my post 5541 ("Re: 1st Chunk").
> Here if what you write, with my comment first in blue, and you reply in
> << Thank you for you post 5527. Whilst you clarify a number of things, I
> don't see you as saying anything new in the post, so I don't have
> anything to say in response apart from that you didn't actually give me
> the page references I was after. What I would like, if possible, is the
> Hong page numbers for these three quotes from the Steere edition of PH:
> JS, I was about to settle down for some more chunking when what you said
> above finally sank in. Yep, I was too dense to catch it the first time
> around. Since my "more chunking" would be a continuation of my prior
> chunking, and in that you saw nothing new that would require a response,
> why then should I expect a response to that which I was about to create?
> Well, then, thought I, to whom should I then be speaking if I were to
> continue chunking? Perhaps to myself, which I must admit I do much of
> around here? How about the clown? Perfect thought I. So be it! Why beat
> a dead horse when there is a live clown around? ----willy
> When I said I did not see anything new in your post I was referring just
> to your post 5541, which seemed to me to be the point where the "1st
> Chunk" thread petered out.
> Your previous four posts to me 5464, 5468, 5469 & 5488 all contained a
> lot of new stuff, and as I remarked in my post 5474 ("Re: The
> Language of Reflection (part 2)"), they "helped me to improve my
> understanding of your interpretation of K, and they have also helped me
> to progress my own understanding of K."
> If you recall, your "1st Chunk" post 5488 was a response to only
> the first two paragraphs of my post 5474 the part dealing with the
> question of whether "in eternity" referred to the here and now
> or life after death or perhaps even both of these.
> In the rest of my post 5474 I talked about a number of issues relating
> to "the absolute view of the self-change". In particular I ask
> you a number of questions about your view concerning which I am keen to
> hear what you have to say. I am sure in answering my questions you will
> be saying something new to me, otherwise I would have no need for asking
> you the questions.
> If you are now bored with the subject matter of the thread "The
> Language of Reflection (part 2)", please do not trouble yourself to
> respond to the rest of my post 5474, but as I say, if you do respond, I
> will read your reply/replies with interest.
> To make things easy I will copy and paste below the section of my post
> 5474 which you have not responded to.
> Extract from my post 5474 ("Re: The Language of Reflection (part
> A second criticism is that your description of the absolute way of
> self-change is based on an anti-Christian theory of personal identity.
> According to the absolute way, you have existed as two different
> individuals or selves: the aesthetic individual "WB1" before your
> aesthetic-to-ethical transition and the ethical individual "WB2" after
> your absolute transition.
> As I understand you, the individual WB1 went out of existence in the
> late sixties (or was it the seventies?), and the new individual WB2 was
> created out of nothing. Although the US state authorities only recognize
> one person "William Brown", in reality there have been two people who
> have possessed the official ID for "William Brown".
> Whilst I have no worries about the US authorities being in the wrong, I
> suggest that K does not hold to this "two persons" view of "William
> Brown" because it is contrary to traditional Christian doctrine.
> As I read K he was a conservative when it came to traditional Christian
> doctrine he had no wish to question or amend what he understood as
> Christian dogma.
> It is traditional Christian doctrine that God created each of us as one
> person or self at our conception. This self continues as one self
> throughout its earthly existence, and continues as the same self after
> death when it is judged and ends up in heaven or hell.
> Each of us, as one single individual, is at death responsible for all
> our actions throughout our earthly lives, in particular we are each
> responsible for the sins we have committed.
> On your two-self view, WB2 is not responsible for the actions or sins of
> WB1, as WB2 is not the same person as WB1.
> Your view, which fits more closely with Eastern ideas of the self, is
> heretical with respect to Christianity, and, I suggest, K would not
> countenance such a view.
> Let me pick up these sentences of yours where you criticise the relative
> way of self-change:
> << There are a few difficulties in applying the above form of
> self-change to SK's words, even if he, from time to time, refers not to
> death but a dying to. The first and foremost being that in many places
> he describes the self-change in terms that may be read as absolutely
> requiring an absolute change of identity. >>
> Can you give references and/or quotes for these "many places" where K
> describes the self-change as requiring "an absolute change of identity"?
> In your post 5468 you ask:
> << How can you see an absolute disjunction in the transition from the
> esthetic to the ethical and not see what I am talking about? We must not
> have the same idea of what an absolute disjunction means when it comes
> to subjectivity. What do you mean? >>
> I interpret K's talk of an "absolute disjunction" as implying an
> absolute change of the individual (the self) as a result of the leap
> from the lower sphere to the higher sphere. For me the absolute
> disjunction means the (same) self changing absolutely, for you it means
> that the old self dies (is annihilated) and the new self is created from
> It would be helpful if you could list all the places where K uses the
> term "absolute disjunction". From memory, I recall he only uses the term
> to describe the religiousness A to religiousness B
> transition; not, as you believe, the aesthetic-to-ethical transition.
> But I may be wrong here.
> The quotes you give from your post 5469 are very helpful and do show
> that K did distinguish between "bad" reflection and "good" reflection.
> Bad reflection is the kind of objective reflection of the Hegelians who
> "cast all Christian relationships into reflection".
> Good reflection is subjective reflection, "a god fearing reflection", "
> a reflection on himself, which is itself an action", "the infinite
> reflection", "another kind of reflection, specifically, that of
> inwardness, of possession, whereby it belongs to the subject and no one
> else", "the reflection of inwardness the subjective thinker's
> double reflection".
> However, whilst this kind of reflection is worthwhile, even essential
> for the individual who has become ensnared by objective reflection, it
> must always be remembered that "one does not become a Christian through
> With regard to the question of whether K saw it as his task to "cast all
> the Christian relationships into reflection", the following quote does
> seem to support your view:
> "Thus he completed the task of reflectionto cast Christianity,
> becoming a Christian, wholly and fully into reflection. The purity of
> his heart was to will only one thing." (PV, Hong, p. 97)
> I do not have a copy of PV, so I would like to read this quote within
> its context. Could you put the quote embedded in its paragraph with the
> preceding and following paragraph included as well?
> It is not clear to me who the "he" in the quote refers to, or who has
> "the task of reflection".
> I am not sure to what extent the quotes you include support your
> interpretation of K. For example, I note that "the leap is the category
> of decision", which fits my interpretation of the aesthetic-to-ethical
> transition exactly, but is an embarrassment to your view, as I don't
> think you see the aesthetic-to-ethical transition as essentially "a
> [End of extract from my post 5474]