Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

39241Re: Cabin Death

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Jul 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Nick Widger <nawidger@...> wrote:
      > You gave me the idea for the post, so where is the "genuine
      meeting-place" in "CROSS?"

      No. My words gave you the idea. Don't confuse ontical categories
      with ontological. My position, this is philosophical list. There
      is no meeting-place for as long as you do not comprehend my intents,
      context, etc.

      > Why respond if you do not fret?

      If I were fretting, I would react in possibly ill-tempered manner.
      Instead I was calm, attempting to be constructive. Maybe that was
      rash, since you are newbie.

      > If old is new, then how many times should you read the new
      before it becomes old?

      A sophistical question. Seventy times seven?

      > And then is it new? Why ever read more than one book, if this is

      I am subjectivist. Nietzschean-Kierkegaardian. Try using the
      admirable search-facility, explore the archives.

      > Again, why respond to the incoherent and incomprehendable views
      stated in a post, if you do not care about the possession or the

      No, my own trust is in the incoherent, for good reason. Indirect
      communication. Your views are comprehendable, though that is my
      belief. I cannot prove this, except to you, perhaps, eventually.

      > Would you like to rethink your response?


      > If so, I'll advise you that it'll take more effort on your part,
      and it'll be against the views stated here.

      Are you a teacher??

      > louise <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
      > Nick, I concur, with your views as here expressed, then,
      how might
      > we know, if what I suppose to understand may form genuine meeting-
      > place with what you thought to communicate. Old is new, and the
      > much-read are not necessarily known at all. All I do is Nooist,
      > here or elsewhere, making my neurons happy because that's what
      > they're for, posting loved stuff, whose possession, do I care.
      > Incoherence often suitable, in discourse fraught with varied
      > What I learnt here, in thirty months, is, why fret. Anguish is so
      > much more important. Human bigotry against that annoys: poetry,
      > prophetic, epic, or tragic drama, or else Dionysiac release, these
      > reconcile me to (by lifting me above) the petty cruelties of
      > incomprehension, that bloody daily farce. Louise
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Nick Widger <nawidger@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Yes, good old Nietzsche, I know all his works quite well. I also
      > know another man with a hammer: Heidegger, who wrote:
      > >
      > > Being and Time: The Being of Beings Encountered in the
      > Surrounding World
      > >
      > > "Association geared to useful things which show themselves
      > genuinely only in this assosiation, that is, hammering with the
      > hammer, neither graps, these beings thematically as occuring
      > nor does it even know of using or the structure of useful things
      > such. Hammering does not just have a knowledge of the useful
      > character of the hammer; rather, it has appropriated this useful
      > thing in the most adequate way possible. When we take care of
      > things, we are subordinate to the in-order-to constitutive for the
      > actual useful thing in our association with it. The less we just
      > stare at a thing called a hammer, the more actively we use it, the
      > more original our relation to it becomes and the more
      > it is encountered as what it is, as a useful thing."
      > >
      > > He later explains the difference between "present-at-hand"
      > and "ready-at-hand." Descartes sees items, such as his candle, as
      > being "present-at-hand," meaning "things of contemplation."
      > Heidegger sees items, as tools, for use, hence "ready-at-hand."
      > I'm sure you knew that. The irony of the hammer as use item, a
      > is that it can be used as a weapon to bash out some persons
      > Bashing out some persons brains with a hammer is unethical; yet,
      > holds the weapon as a device for promoting ethics (seems ironic to
      > me). Killing shortens our already temporary life--hence, the next
      > line of my writing--and it leads to unclear choices, such as: Do I
      > truly want to support blatantly foolish idealogies? Is there a
      > better solution to the problem? Can I find a more beneficial way
      > use these tools? And, if I had a way to end our problems, would
      > anyone support and act on that solution---hence, "Why give tools
      > those who won't use them"--because, sometimes a tool is a hammer
      > > and sometimes a tool is a plan or idea. But since very few
      > listen,or support, authentic ideas or plans, they end up following
      > blindly the words of men clueless of their own truth--
      > hence, "Blindly follow the blind."
      > >
      > > If it didn't make sense to you that's because it wasn't meant
      > for you. These lines are pointers, meant for me, on the state of
      > affairs (from my perspective). "I've got your hammer," for
      > pointed to your post "CROSS," and what I thought of your post. My
      > initial system came from your post, "cross." I won't explain the
      > other lines, but they follow the same pattern, a philosophical
      > passage and a corresponding post on existlist. Okay?
      > >
      > > Umm...louise, you seem to be closely attached to certain
      > passages from different existential authors. Are there any
      > of your own you would like to express? Just wondering. I've been
      > through enough classes where I had to memorize and explain and
      > debate the passages of philosophers. Anything knew feels like a
      > godsend. If not, it's okay. I've seen a pattern of people being
      > attached to quotes from certain philosophers, which is also okay.
      > >
      > > louise <hecubatoher@> wrote:
      > > hmm, dont think i recognise your tool.
      > >
      > > 'How to Philosophise with a Hammer', sub-title to "Twilight of
      > > Idols", written by Friedrich Nietzsche between June and
      > > 1888, the clear explication supplied within the author's
      > > foreword: 'to *sound out idols*'.
      > >
      > > this my own attempt also, even when providing quotation without
      > > comment.
      > >
      > > in spite of Bill's distrust, still plenty to learn from the
      > > for whom irony stands in relation to aesthetics, humour to
      > > contemplation and action are of different nature, the pains and
      > > pleasures proper to each sphere distinct, attracting each its
      > > of communication. irony repels, humour reconciles. if there be
      > > responsibility, thought is oriented, uttered, in relation to
      > > where is failure or misunderstanding, instead of irony and
      > we
      > > are yielded sarcasm and mockery.
      > >
      > > subjectivity the greatest gift, potential for affirmation. time,
      > > however, resolves all contradiction. are you willing to wait??
      > > are human, witnesses to suffering. too much for the mind.
      > > stuttering, silence, these trail into the nothing, where are no
      > > questions. it is Sunday. worship takes many forms. i shudder.
      > > blinded, yes, we all fall into the ditch.
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas Widger" <nawidger@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I've got your hammer
      > > >
      > > > Ethics and Irony
      > > >
      > > > a temporary life
      > > >
      > > > Choices unclear
      > > >
      > > > Why give tools to those who won't use them?
      > > >
      > > > Blindly follow the blind
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic