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

Nietzsche, Hegel, and Kierkegaard

Expand Messages
  • Anubis1130@aol.com
    Hello, I must say that Kierkegaard destroyed man, or kept Christianity into the dismal abyss that it has been in, after Hegel tried to at least make it decent.
    Message 1 of 29 , Aug 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      I must say that Kierkegaard destroyed man, or kept Christianity into the
      dismal abyss that it has been in, after Hegel tried to at least make it
      decent. With Hegel we have a progressive phenomology that culminates in the
      Absolute Spirit, with Nietzsche man goes from the Sovereign Individual,
      Noble, to the Artist. Though I find some problems with Hegel, the idea of
      God trying to realize himself through man brings back the greatness of
      Hermeticism, and with Nietzsche the intoxication of existence of the great
      paganisms come back. How does Kierkegaard bring back man's dignity, by
      "choices". What is so special about the teleological suspension of the
      ethical, there is no greatness in banking everything upon a transcendental
      deity. The either/or of Christianity and the decision to make Jesus as a
      savior, and in the process limiting the human by guilt and sin and creating a
      vast abyss between God and man, and then putting all human authenticity upon
      a "paradoxical decision" is the lowpoint of the human spirit.

      I was definitely being strong in the above paragraph, but any defenders of
      Kierkegaard and his Christian phenomology? I would be interested in hearing
      about it.

      Does the transcendental god need to die, Nietzsche, Hegel, and Schelling
      believe so?

      Thanks,
      Mark


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • nothing@theabsurd.com
      In my interpretation, I can t be sure I haven t some bias -- and I
      Message 2 of 29 , Aug 31, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        << Does the transcendental god need to die, Nietzsche, Hegel,
        and Schelling believe so? >>

        In my interpretation, I can't be sure I haven't some bias -- and I
        expect that I do -- but 'need' is perhaps too strong a word. I was
        under the impression that the suggestion was in some sense
        that the utility of god had passed, at least in Nietzsche. Though
        he generally words more strongly than that (at least in translation
        -- don't get me started).

        My personal perspective is that there is no need for god in
        philosophy -- and that the two subjects, often addressed
        together (I think the initial mistake was by Descartes like Adam
        in the orchard bit of the apple and infected us all), have almost
        nothing to do with one another (just as the religious stories of
        the bible might be, rather, philosophy or just interesting reading
        rather than connected to any religion). A philosophical
        perspective as a general 'philosophy' might be considered as
        separately contained from religious philosophies, unless they
        come in conflict. I would think the philosophy contained by the
        religion is more important than the god associated with it. At
        least if you are interested in philosophy. 'god' becomes an
        entirely separate matter depending on how you break it down.

        As existentialism is centered on self to a large extent, it seems
        also inconsistent that an existentialist would search outside
        himself to a god for any sort for dogma. However, and at the
        same time, this does not preclude existence and the possibility
        of belief in a god or gods -- I would suggest, however, that the
        existentialist might not have to listen to the associated religion
        (which would almost necessarily be either in part or whole of
        human misconception and manufacture).

        It seems to me that many are far too concerned with nailing an
        absolute (using the best of concrete nails) to the forehead of one
        or another philosopher and walking away with some prize for
        having done so.

        My question: Is it more important to know what philosopher xyz
        thought, or to read the ideas, ingest them, and know how your
        conclusions and perspectives have been improved or
        strengthened by having read them?

        My arguement against defining another philosopher's thought as
        an absolute would be that your singular interpretation is no less
        valid than someone else's, even if these ideas differ. Was the
        philosopher thinking more than one thing if there can be
        separate interpretations? Perhaps. Does it matter? Not unless
        his perspective is more important than my own. While I can
        admire what I have found in one writing or another, I can't run
        from the text with the bloody heart of its perspective in my hand.
        The only bauble is my own twisted perspective and how I
        perceive its effect on the words and interpretation. The final
        result of the ideas are that they are my own, and I accept or reject
        how I understand them -- and it is unfair for me to tout these
        ideas as someone else's as it is certain that I have somehow
        ruined them.

        I obviously keep ruining 'Duards...

        less to say...
        -----------------
      • Anubis1130@aol.com
        In a message dated 8/31/2001 5:38:46 AM Central Daylight Time, ... Let me explain my original point, though Kierkegaard claims to give man his dignity that he
        Message 3 of 29 , Aug 31, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 8/31/2001 5:38:46 AM Central Daylight Time,
          nothing@... writes:


          > My question: Is it more important to know what philosopher xyz
          > thought, or to read the ideas, ingest them, and know how your
          > conclusions and perspectives have been improved or
          > strengthened by having read them?
          >

          Let me explain my original point, though Kierkegaard claims to give man his
          dignity that he felt was lost in Hegel, Hegel has us as god immanent trying
          to realize himself, while for Kierkegaard the greatest thing man can do is
          bank everything upon a transcendental deity. The idea of god is only central
          in my argument as it relates to man. For Hegel we have a progressive
          phenomology leading to the absolute, while for Kierkegaard he sees some
          greatness placed upon an absurd decision based upon an unverifiable paradox.
          I will say that Hegel gives man much more dignity than Kierkegaard. That is
          the conclusion that I have come to. That is how my perspective has been
          improved.

          You state:
          My arguement against defining another philosopher's thought as
          an absolute would be that your singular interpretation is no less
          valid than someone else's, even if these ideas differ. Was the
          philosopher thinking more than one thing if there can be
          separate interpretations? Perhaps. Does it matter? Not unless
          his perspective is more important than my own. While I can
          admire what I have found in one writing or another, I can't run
          from the text with the bloody heart of its perspective in my hand.
          The only bauble is my own twisted perspective and how I
          perceive its effect on the words and interpretation. The final
          result of the ideas are that they are my own, and I accept or reject
          how I understand them -- and it is unfair for me to tout these
          ideas as someone else's as it is certain that I have somehow
          ruined them.

          Of course their is personal interpretations of someone's works, but it is not
          hard to get into the general ballpark. Yes, Hegel desired the immanent
          deity, while for Kierkegaard he thought that was a pagan belief, and wanted a
          return to the transcendental deity. Basically this is what you are saying.

          I make the statement:
          I like milk.

          You overcomplicate by saying:
          Does he really like milk.
          What does milk signify?
          Is it sexual, maybe it is a breast fascination.
          Maybe he is thinking about cereal at the time, and really like s cereal.

          I say
          I like milk. That's it.

          Forget about god in a religiously or dogmatically sense, let us go to an
          existential sense. I wanted to bring upon the difference of the
          transcendental god of Kierkegaard as opposed to the immanent god of Hegel and
          how it relates to man, how it affects man existentially, and the thoughts of
          others on this.

          -Mark


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Eduard Alf
          hi Mark, You paint a dark picture. I understand where you are coming from, but I don t think anyone started off with the intention of creating a vast abyss
          Message 4 of 29 , Aug 31, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            hi Mark,

            You paint a dark picture. I understand where you
            are coming from, but I don't think anyone started
            off with the intention of "creating a vast abyss
            between God and man", or putting man's dignity
            somewhere that it needs be brought back. I should
            think that there was simply a progressive
            evolution towards things that "work". The same
            goes for Jesus being a "saviour"; it simply made
            sense at the time and place. Albeit the concept
            may not necessarily work in today's world.

            Whether the transcendental god must die is still
            open to question. There has been some movement
            towards pagan religions and the like. I myself am
            inclined towards Daoism, but there is always this
            feeling that there has to be some kind of concrete
            god to which to brings one's problems. The way I
            see it, there will always be a need for a
            transcendental god. Perhaps the one at present
            has to be changed to meet the new conditions of
            our society.

            eduard

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Anubis1130@...
            [mailto:Anubis1130@...]
            Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:34 AM
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [existlist] Nietzsche, Hegel, and
            Kierkegaard

            Hello,

            I must say that Kierkegaard destroyed man, or kept
            Christianity into the
            dismal abyss that it has been in, after Hegel
            tried to at least make it
            decent. With Hegel we have a progressive
            phenomology that culminates in the
            Absolute Spirit, with Nietzsche man goes from the
            Sovereign Individual,
            Noble, to the Artist. Though I find some problems
            with Hegel, the idea of
            God trying to realize himself through man brings
            back the greatness of
            Hermeticism, and with Nietzsche the intoxication
            of existence of the great
            paganisms come back. How does Kierkegaard bring
            back man's dignity, by
            "choices". What is so special about the
            teleological suspension of the
            ethical, there is no greatness in banking
            everything upon a transcendental
            deity. The either/or of Christianity and the
            decision to make Jesus as a
            savior, and in the process limiting the human by
            guilt and sin and creating a
            vast abyss between God and man, and then putting
            all human authenticity upon
            a "paradoxical decision" is the lowpoint of the
            human spirit.

            I was definitely being strong in the above
            paragraph, but any defenders of
            Kierkegaard and his Christian phenomology? I
            would be interested in hearing
            about it.

            Does the transcendental god need to die,
            Nietzsche, Hegel, and Schelling
            believe so?

            Thanks,
            Mark
          • Eduard Alf
            Mark,
            Message 5 of 29 , Aug 31, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Mark,

              << I make the statement: I like milk.>>

              << I say I like milk. That's it.>>

              beautiful. well said. Yes, sometimes "liking
              milk" is just that. It does not have to be
              defined, or questioned as to who is drinking it
              and what their perception happens to be at the
              time. Sometimes a spade is just a spade.

              a transcendental god is needed because it works.
              It allows us to run around dominating the natural
              world, because for the particular time and
              circumstance that is what we want to do. And in
              doing it, when we run into problems, we want
              something or someone outside of nature to complain
              to and ask forgiveness.

              an immanent god is needed when we have the time,
              means and inclination to indulge ourselves in it.
              And circumstances are not so rough that we can
              provide our own forgiveness. If you screw up in
              the forest, it is a lot better to have a god that
              will let you burn the place down, then one who
              points out that it is really your fault and you
              should hug a tree more often.

              eduard
            • Anubis1130@aol.com
              Hello Eduard: Yeah I see what you said in both the emails, the transcendental god does work, some hate the transcendental god like Nietzsche, Kirkegaard needed
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Eduard:

                Yeah I see what you said in both the emails, the transcendental god does
                work, some hate the transcendental god like Nietzsche, Kirkegaard needed him
                for an authentic existence. Some questions though, in your opinion how many
                Christians are Hegelian, I see books comparing Hegel to Hermeticism,
                followers of Eastern thought like him, but not that much Christians, I have
                even seen Christian sites that bash him, Schelling and Fichte for the
                immanent god. The idea of man as god trying to realize himself is pagan, I
                would agree with Kirkegaard on that. Also I believe Barth of whom I read
                very little wanted to make god and man as antithetical. I never perceive of
                Christianity as an immanentism, to me Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all
                have the transcendental lord, and everything boils down to creator vs
                created. What is your opinion on this?

                Now you study Taoism, that interests me. Where for Western metaphysics(Old
                Greek), there was some state of the Spirit or Mind that had to be realized,
                even in the Indian, one could state the Shaivist and Shakttist tradition as a
                progressive phenomology. I have heard that Taoism doesn't take this
                approach, it is not seen a s a sort of progressive phenomology as in the
                Shavist, Shaktiist, Hermetic, and Hegelian approach, but rather as the most
                authentic form of existence. So for Taoism you don't take the approach of
                the moralist religions or the ones in which you try to realize some form of
                the absolute spirit, but one in which your realize your true state of Being.
                It would be more on the lines of Heidegger rather than Hegel.

                -Mark

                In a message dated 8/31/2001 4:19:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
                yeoman@... writes:


                > hi Mark,
                >
                > You paint a dark picture. I understand where you
                > are coming from, but I don't think anyone started
                > off with the intention of "creating a vast abyss
                > between God and man", or putting man's dignity
                > somewhere that it needs be brought back. I should
                > think that there was simply a progressive
                > evolution towards things that "work". The same
                > goes for Jesus being a "saviour"; it simply made
                > sense at the time and place. Albeit the concept
                > may not necessarily work in today's world.
                >
                > Whether the transcendental god must die is still
                > open to question. There has been some movement
                > towards pagan religions and the like. I myself am
                > inclined towards Daoism, but there is always this
                > feeling that there has to be some kind of concrete
                > god to which to brings one's problems. The way I
                > see it, there will always be a need for a
                > transcendental god. Perhaps the one at present
                > has to be changed to meet the new conditions of
                > our society.
                >
                > eduard
                >




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Eduard Alf
                hi Mark, you are well beyond me on this. I only dabble at this stage and you lose me with words like phenomology , unless you mean phenomenology . Anyway,
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 2, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  hi Mark,

                  you are well beyond me on this. I only dabble at
                  this stage and you lose me with words like
                  "phenomology", unless you mean "phenomenology".

                  Anyway, Christianity is so large that it includes
                  all sorts of beliefs. A lot of it was modified in
                  contact with the pagans, such that you have things
                  like Christmas which is an occasion in the pagan
                  calendar, rather than the true birthdate of
                  Christ. By the way I take paganism as worship of
                  god in nature and not an effort of man trying to
                  realise himself; which perhaps may be the same
                  thing depending upon how you do your
                  interpretation.

                  I could say that Christianity is a belief of an
                  external god who returns to the site of his
                  creation [earth] in order to redeem the objects of
                  his creation [namely mankind] though means of a
                  Christ. Salvation through Christ becomes central
                  focus of the religion. Beyond that I should think
                  that anything goes. I understand that Thomas
                  Merton [1915 - 1968] was informed of mysticism of
                  the east, but having only scanned some of his
                  books, I am not sure if he viewed god as immanent,
                  or simply described this as another system of
                  belief.

                  It would not surprise me if some Christians did
                  indeed see god and perhaps even Christ as
                  immanent. In todays world, you think a lot of
                  things without fear of the stake. But to answer
                  your question; yes, Christianity and the others
                  you mentioned could be seen as creator vs.
                  created.

                  As to Daoism, I don't see this as a belief system
                  leading to a realisation of a true self. I see it
                  simply as a means by which I can have a better
                  understanding of my world and how to live in it.
                  For example, it has helped me to get through a
                  particularly trying time this year. In a way,
                  Daoism provides me with words and images that I do
                  not obtain elsewhere. Daoism is not a religion
                  [although it does have a religious side in China]
                  and is more of a philosophy. Like all
                  philosophies, it may appear elsewhere in a
                  different guise.

                  I would tend to agree with Bookdoc in that it is
                  perhaps incorrect to go by labels, as to say that
                  something is in line with "Heidegger" or "Hegel".
                  I am not that familiar with these philosophers, to
                  say that anything is in line with their thinking.
                  In the end I don't think that anyone is striving
                  after anything other than to be "comfortable" with
                  themselves and their situation. Sometimes this
                  leads to things like Christianity, at others as
                  Daoism. It is those who are the organizers of the
                  religion, or shall I say, "management", who create
                  and enforce the dogma.

                  eduard



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Anubis1130@...
                  [mailto:Anubis1130@...]
                  Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 4:09 AM
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [existlist] Nietzsche, Hegel, and
                  Kierkegaard


                  Hello Eduard:

                  Yeah I see what you said in both the emails, the
                  transcendental god does
                  work, some hate the transcendental god like
                  Nietzsche, Kirkegaard needed him
                  for an authentic existence. Some questions
                  though, in your opinion how many
                  Christians are Hegelian, I see books comparing
                  Hegel to Hermeticism,
                  followers of Eastern thought like him, but not
                  that much Christians, I have
                  even seen Christian sites that bash him, Schelling
                  and Fichte for the
                  immanent god. The idea of man as god trying to
                  realize himself is pagan, I
                  would agree with Kirkegaard on that. Also I
                  believe Barth of whom I read
                  very little wanted to make god and man as
                  antithetical. I never perceive of
                  Christianity as an immanentism, to me Judaism,
                  Islam, and Christianity all
                  have the transcendental lord, and everything boils
                  down to creator vs
                  created. What is your opinion on this?

                  Now you study Taoism, that interests me. Where
                  for Western metaphysics(Old
                  Greek), there was some state of the Spirit or Mind
                  that had to be realized,
                  even in the Indian, one could state the Shaivist
                  and Shakttist tradition as a
                  progressive phenomology. I have heard that Taoism
                  doesn't take this
                  approach, it is not seen a s a sort of progressive
                  phenomology as in the
                  Shavist, Shaktiist, Hermetic, and Hegelian
                  approach, but rather as the most
                  authentic form of existence. So for Taoism you
                  don't take the approach of
                  the moralist religions or the ones in which you
                  try to realize some form of
                  the absolute spirit, but one in which your realize
                  your true state of Being.
                  It would be more on the lines of Heidegger rather
                  than Hegel.

                  -Mark

                  In a message dated 8/31/2001 4:19:05 PM Central
                  Daylight Time,
                  yeoman@... writes:


                  > hi Mark,
                  >
                  > You paint a dark picture. I understand where
                  you
                  > are coming from, but I don't think anyone
                  started
                  > off with the intention of "creating a vast abyss
                  > between God and man", or putting man's dignity
                  > somewhere that it needs be brought back. I
                  should
                  > think that there was simply a progressive
                  > evolution towards things that "work". The same
                  > goes for Jesus being a "saviour"; it simply made
                  > sense at the time and place. Albeit the concept
                  > may not necessarily work in today's world.
                  >
                  > Whether the transcendental god must die is still
                  > open to question. There has been some movement
                  > towards pagan religions and the like. I myself
                  am
                  > inclined towards Daoism, but there is always
                  this
                  > feeling that there has to be some kind of
                  concrete
                  > god to which to brings one's problems. The way
                  I
                  > see it, there will always be a need for a
                  > transcendental god. Perhaps the one at present
                  > has to be changed to meet the new conditions of
                  > our society.
                  >
                  > eduard
                  >




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been
                  removed]


                  ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

                  Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                  (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                  TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                  existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                • Anubis1130@aol.com
                  In a message dated 9/2/2001 9:31:11 AM Central Daylight Time, ... Hello Eduard: Yeah my mistake for misspelling it, sorry. I guess my main pont of Taoism is
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 2, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 9/2/2001 9:31:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
                    yeoman@... writes:


                    > hi Mark,
                    >
                    > you are well beyond me on this. I only dabble at
                    > this stage and you lose me with words like
                    > "phenomology", unless you mean "phenomenology".
                    >

                    Hello Eduard:

                    Yeah my mistake for misspelling it, sorry.

                    I guess my main pont of Taoism is that unlike the Greek systems in which the
                    goal was to reach some outstanding state of Being, the goal of Taoism is to
                    live by the Tao, it is a more passive and calm approach, the goal is actually
                    the most natural state of Being. It is hard to explain.

                    -Mark


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Eduard Alf
                    or as they say, to return to the uncarved block eduard ... From: Anubis1130@aol.com [mailto:Anubis1130@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 4:49 PM To:
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 2, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      or as they say, to return to the "uncarved block"

                      eduard

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Anubis1130@...
                      [mailto:Anubis1130@...]
                      Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 4:49 PM
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [existlist] Nietzsche, Hegel, and
                      Kierkegaard


                      In a message dated 9/2/2001 9:31:11 AM Central
                      Daylight Time,
                      yeoman@... writes:


                      > hi Mark,
                      >
                      > you are well beyond me on this. I only dabble
                      at
                      > this stage and you lose me with words like
                      > "phenomology", unless you mean "phenomenology".
                      >

                      Hello Eduard:

                      Yeah my mistake for misspelling it, sorry.

                      I guess my main pont of Taoism is that unlike the
                      Greek systems in which the
                      goal was to reach some outstanding state of Being,
                      the goal of Taoism is to
                      live by the Tao, it is a more passive and calm
                      approach, the goal is actually
                      the most natural state of Being. It is hard to
                      explain.

                      -Mark


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been
                      removed]


                      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

                      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    • Diana
                      ... read the ideas, ingest them, and know how your conclusions and perspectives have been improved or strengthened by having read them? My interpretation of
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >> Is it more important to know what philosopher xyz thought, or to
                        read the ideas, ingest them, and know how your conclusions and
                        perspectives have been improved or strengthened by having read them?>>

                        My interpretation of what you are saying is that reading philosophy
                        is like reading a poem. You take from the text that which appeals to
                        you. While reading it you explore your own world.

                        So there's no point in trying to understand the original author? It
                        still seems to me that such an attempt is not entirely artificial and
                        useless. I may never understand that person completely, but the very
                        attempt takes me deeper.
                      • nothing@theabsurd.com
                        ...
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In existlist@y..., "Diana" <da-sein@e...> wrote:
                          << So there's no point in trying to understand the original author?
                          It still seems to me that such an attempt is not entirely artificial
                          and useless. I may never understand that person completely, but
                          the very attempt takes me deeper.>>

                          It would seem to me that attempting to understand a
                          multi-faceted einstien in a clown-suit type personality might --
                          might, mind you -- lead no closer to the meaning of the words
                          than the words themselves. Understand that coming from my
                          perspective (if I can make anything whatso-ever clear), you are
                          creating a fictional account of the person whom you consider to
                          be author anyway from what you do and don't know (in absurd,
                          that would be don't and don't, but who's counting?). using this
                          backdrop to understand the wording as to what you think the
                          perspective might be could indeed compound errors even if
                          trying to understand the author were the imperative (and I am not
                          convinced that it is).

                          I do believe this is similarly stated in deconstructive theory, but I
                          understand it as: If you are to place the author and the author's
                          meaning above the words and what you derive from them (the
                          latter of which to me is far more interesting), you are putting your
                          intellect lower than the author's -- or at least in comparison to. I
                          feel that would only lead to the academic tit-for-tat (which is
                          popular, but to me, useless) where you compare your thought to
                          the authors and declair it right/wrong; in the reading I like to do
                          there is much less disrespect -- or potential disrespect -- of the
                          ideas, and no need to develop a heirarchy. In essence, the ideas
                          become yours as you understand them, and to me that is much
                          more involving -- and interesting. I am not much for history (in
                          fact, I don't believe in it); the historical idea of attribution becomes
                          a bit meaningless.

                          On the other hand, I didn't mean to say that someone else needs
                          to read the way I do (though doubtless it came out that way). I
                          just think that there is no way for me to know another personality
                          when mine changes so as per my discovery (and heap all my
                          other absurd ideas in the mess -- and you get a mess). I could
                          see how the exercise of creating a construct of the author
                          mentally may be valuable to some. However, I could never
                          consider my conclusions valid.

                          Read like poetry? Perhaps. I think that won't fly with many though
                          because of some attribute or perspective attached to these
                          things that are called poems. I might simply suggest that it is
                          just read -- that the unfolding of ideas is the thing that I watch for
                          not unlike a movie. It allows for broader interpretations...and
                          popcorn.

                          What kind of fool am I
                          -----------------------------
                        • gamine22@aol.com
                          In a message dated 9/3/01 3:55:29 PM, da-sein@excite.com writes:
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 9/3/01 3:55:29 PM, da-sein@... writes:

                            << So there's no point in trying to understand the original author? It
                            still seems to me that such an attempt is not entirely artificial and
                            useless. I may never understand that person completely, but the very
                            attempt takes me deeper.
                            >>

                            in understanding the original author, you can also gain a deeper perspective
                            or gain facts that embellish your original thoughts on the author's work. you
                            can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight.

                            dubstar
                          • nothing@theabsurd.com
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 3, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              << you can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight. >>

                              Following that to a logical conclusion, there would never be any
                              original thought. I would hope this is not the case.

                              Quite often I learn either by writing or discussing. If I feel I gain
                              something from my own meditations, are you suggesting I am deceiving
                              myself? (I can't really argue the point that I wouldn't be anyway.)
                              Limiting it to gain only from another source sort-a saps the internal
                              mechanism, eh?

                              Going nowhere.
                              ---------
                            • gamine22@aol.com
                              In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@theabsurd.com writes:
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@... writes:

                                << Quite often I learn either by writing or discussing. If I feel I gain
                                something from my own meditations, are you suggesting I am deceiving
                                myself? (I can't really argue the point that I wouldn't be anyway.)
                                Limiting it to gain only from another source sort-a saps the internal
                                mechanism, eh? >>

                                surely you can gain from yourself as well as gain from others. just because
                                you have some added depth from another's perspective does not mean that you
                                cannot speculate or develop upon your own ideas at the same time. i suppose i
                                did not make my statement clear enough. there is always original thought, it
                                cannot be helped. yet, suppose you read a poem plus an additional author's
                                interpretation. not only would you gain the added insight of the author, but
                                you would also retain your own first impressions and then further developed
                                thoughts upon reading the addtional interpretation.

                                consequently, one can gain from another's knowledge by choosing to oppose it.
                                for example, take the knowledge of hitler. entire civilizations are
                                benefitted by the knowledge that genicide is not and will not be tolerated.
                                the knowledge of hitler, his theories, and his added insight on those
                                theories all help us to understand and further see the wrong in his actions
                                and visions.

                                without the knowledge of others we could all certainly think and move forward
                                in life. we would be able to function normally and discover theories of our
                                own. yet, with the knowledge of others our own knowledge only expands,
                                picking and choosing what we accept, reject, and feel indifference too. the
                                thoughts of others build within us character and intellect, compounded with
                                our own original foundations.

                                dubstar
                              • gamine22@aol.com
                                In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@theabsurd.com writes:
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@... writes:

                                  << << you can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight. >> >>

                                  the only in that sentence was not meant to single out other people's
                                  knowledge as the only source of insight. it was meant to say that your
                                  intellect cannot be detracted from by other's insight. i suppose i should
                                  have said the knowledge and insight of others can only add to your own
                                  knowledge.
                                • William Harris
                                  I like pop music. More than once I have misunderstood lyrics and relagated a meaning to the song which was quite innapproiate. Yet I like my meaning so I will
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I like pop music. More than once I have misunderstood lyrics and relagated a
                                    meaning to the song which was quite innapproiate. Yet I like my meaning so I
                                    will keep it, after all, Its only rock and roll. Bill

                                    gamine22@... wrote:

                                    > In a message dated 9/3/01 8:00:32 PM, nothing@... writes:
                                    >
                                    > << << you can only gain from other people's knowledge and insight. >> >>
                                    >
                                    > the only in that sentence was not meant to single out other people's
                                    > knowledge as the only source of insight. it was meant to say that your
                                    > intellect cannot be detracted from by other's insight. i suppose i should
                                    > have said the knowledge and insight of others can only add to your own
                                    > knowledge.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                    > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                                    >
                                    > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                                    > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  • Diana
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      << ... you are creating a fictional account of the person whom you
                                      consider to be author anyway from what you do and don't know (in
                                      absurd, that would be don't and don't, but who's counting?) >>

                                      I understand that I can never know if my account of that person is
                                      valid. Though creating such an account is part of my experience when
                                      I read the text.

                                      But I like what I take to be the essence of what you are saying. I
                                      think that preserving some of the mystery of the author's personality
                                      is the greatest tribute you could pay to that person – instead of
                                      subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own,
                                      classifying him to a particular type of personality etc.


                                      To everyone: I'll be away from the list for the next few months –
                                      need to get into some urgent things. Have fun all of you here
                                      meanwhile. I look forward to being with you again at a later time.

                                      Love,
                                      Diana
                                    • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        << I think that preserving some of the mystery of the author's
                                        personality is the greatest tribute you could pay to that person –
                                        instead of subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your
                                        own, classifying him to a particular type of personality etc.>>

                                        While I wasn't thinking specifically of 'mystery' that is a fair
                                        description. You can't claim to know every thought and inuendo
                                        of an author noo matter how well studied...and there is nothing
                                        wrong with the author jumping out of character to relate a point --
                                        yet failing because it is not consistent. The author will always be
                                        mysterious, no matter who claims to have the answer, key or
                                        blueprint.

                                        mystery me...
                                        ------------------
                                      • james tan
                                        in psychiatric practice, it is done quite a lot of the time, i.e. to subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own, classifying him to a
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          in psychiatric practice, it is done quite a lot of the time, i.e. to
                                          "subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own,
                                          classifying him to a particular type of personality etc." we do it by
                                          looking for evidences in the person's behavioural & cognitive patterns.
                                          depending on context, sometimes it does serve a function for assessment
                                          purposes. it may not be very nice according to diana, but it is done in such
                                          professional setting. of course, the issue is not about 'paying tribute to
                                          the person' as in the context of the authorship. it is a different ball game
                                          altogether.

                                          james.






                                          From: "Diana" <da-sein@...>
                                          Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: [existlist] Re: bow wow....the dog never shuts up.
                                          Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 23:32:15 -0000

                                          << ... you are creating a fictional account of the person whom you
                                          consider to be author anyway from what you do and don't know (in
                                          absurd, that would be don't and don't, but who's counting?) >>

                                          I understand that I can never know if my account of that person is
                                          valid. Though creating such an account is part of my experience when
                                          I read the text.

                                          But I like what I take to be the essence of what you are saying. I
                                          think that preserving some of the mystery of the author's personality
                                          is the greatest tribute you could pay to that person � instead of
                                          subjecting him to a description and evaluation of your own,
                                          classifying him to a particular type of personality etc.


                                          To everyone: I'll be away from the list for the next few months �
                                          need to get into some urgent things. Have fun all of you here
                                          meanwhile. I look forward to being with you again at a later time.

                                          Love,
                                          Diana




                                          _________________________________________________________________
                                          Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                                        • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            <<we do it by looking for evidences in the person's behavioural &
                                            cognitive patterns. >>

                                            Not to play with your profession (as I quite play with my own,
                                            mind you), but is it not an assumption that you come to know a
                                            person and perspective at all even in clinical study? Or have you
                                            mapped out some sort of exacting science of mind?

                                            curious, plus.
                                            -------------------
                                          • Eduard Alf
                                            I have been following this discussion and this has really gotten to the point of absurdity. a person publishes a particular point of view [e.g. all cats are
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I have been following this discussion and this has
                                              really gotten to the point of absurdity.

                                              a person publishes a particular point of view
                                              [e.g. all cats are black at night]. So what if
                                              you cant know every thought and innuendo of the
                                              author. Perhaps he/she likes to drink pasteurized
                                              milk. Or perhaps he/she is secretly the clown at
                                              MacDonald's. You are broadening this out to the
                                              point where it makes no sense. If an author says
                                              something in print then that is what is of
                                              importance. You can even label it such as Mr.
                                              Smith's "Law of Cat Colour in the Night".

                                              Now we are into "preserving some of the mystery of
                                              the author's personality". Why even get into
                                              this? Yes, perhaps Mr. Smith has a particular
                                              inclination towards cats, and this may be
                                              something that we wish to know, in order to assess
                                              the basis his proposing the law, and our own
                                              inclination to accept or reject it. All of that
                                              is valid and is part of the manner in which one
                                              might take into consideration an author's
                                              pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect
                                              to the author is going too far.

                                              eduard

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: nothing@...
                                              [mailto:nothing@...]
                                              Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:12 PM
                                              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up...


                                              << I think that preserving some of the mystery of
                                              the author's
                                              personality is the greatest tribute you could pay
                                              to that person –
                                              instead of subjecting him to a description and
                                              evaluation of your
                                              own, classifying him to a particular type of
                                              personality etc.>>

                                              While I wasn't thinking specifically of 'mystery'
                                              that is a fair
                                              description. You can't claim to know every thought
                                              and inuendo
                                              of an author noo matter how well studied...and
                                              there is nothing
                                              wrong with the author jumping out of character to
                                              relate a point --
                                              yet failing because it is not consistent. The
                                              author will always be
                                              mysterious, no matter who claims to have the
                                              answer, key or
                                              blueprint.

                                              mystery me...
                                              ------------------


                                              ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

                                              Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                              (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                                              TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                                              existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            • james tan
                                              hi nothing (are u the one who is previously known as bookdoc?), to answer your question, yes, it is an assumption or perspective. but 1) there have to be some
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 4, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                hi nothing (are u the one who is previously known as bookdoc?),

                                                to answer your question, yes, it is an assumption or perspective.

                                                but 1) there have to be some assumptions to do any work 2) if those
                                                assumptions u base your work keep producing reliable results, u just have
                                                more faith in those assumptions, until such times when the assumptions do
                                                not work in some new or special cases, then u just admit the limitation of
                                                those assumptions. but that doesn't mean those assumptions are entirely
                                                useless.

                                                well, well, this is not related to the existential, i suppose?! just to
                                                satisfy your curiousity.

                                                james.




                                                From: nothing@...
                                                Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: [existlist] Re: shuts up.
                                                Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 04:04:13 -0000

                                                <<we do it by looking for evidences in the person's behavioural &
                                                cognitive patterns. >>

                                                Not to play with your profession (as I quite play with my own,
                                                mind you), but is it not an assumption that you come to know a
                                                person and perspective at all even in clinical study? Or have you
                                                mapped out some sort of exacting science of mind?

                                                curious, plus.
                                                -------------------



                                                _________________________________________________________________
                                                Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                                              • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                                Dear Sir Duard simplifier extraordinaire, It always seems to,
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

                                                  <<I have been following this discussion and this has really
                                                  gotten to the point of absurdity.>>

                                                  It always seems to, to me...

                                                  << So what if you cant know every thought and innuendo of the
                                                  author...If an author says something in print then that is what is
                                                  of importance... All of that is valid and is part of the manner in
                                                  which one might take into consideration an author's
                                                  pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect to the author
                                                  is going too far.>>

                                                  If you can't know every thought and innuendo, some of the
                                                  author's meaning is necessarily hidden or 'mysterious.' As
                                                  words are perhaps sometimes adequate -- yet more often
                                                  inexact vehicles of meaning (we have examined this before in
                                                  color -- where you said red was red, but I pointed out that red is
                                                  not inate, it is a measure which someone -- or some group of
                                                  someones -- decided on, and which there can be variance from
                                                  in experience. Of course none of that set you wavering). And
                                                  further, meaning...is it entirely the author's, or is it flecked with
                                                  hints of other things the author has read and experienced and/or
                                                  heard -- whether directly attributable or not? And then might word
                                                  choice be affected, at times containing the author's meaning,
                                                  and at others containing internal referants -- which perhaps even
                                                  the author may be unaware? (And I will do us all the favor of not
                                                  getting into genetic transfer of thought, experience and idea.)

                                                  Quite honestly I wish I could take everything as cut and dried and
                                                  hang it all neatly on my clothes-line. But to pretend I know what
                                                  the author meant is pretentious -- even if I do a very long study of
                                                  his work, life, etc.. The only thing I can think I know is what I think
                                                  I am reading, and how my experience reflects on my
                                                  interpretation of what it seems to me the author was doing, and
                                                  even that may be pushing it (depending on how absurd you want
                                                  to get). and in the long run, what of the thing which the author
                                                  meant? Perhaps the writing has meaning for me which is far
                                                  more interesting than whatever the intent was (if either of those
                                                  can be defined). Should I shun what I think and seek out the idea
                                                  of the author which I can never attain? And should I attain it
                                                  (though I think it impossible) there I have grabbed the flag on the
                                                  mountain, and no one cares, knows, agrees or even
                                                  acknowledges...so the purpose is exactly what? Why is the
                                                  author important at all?

                                                  I can't help but reduce it to the absurd...It just happens.

                                                  Reduxio
                                                  -----------
                                                • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    << 1) there have to be some assumptions to do any work ... until
                                                    such times when the assumptions do not work in some new or
                                                    special cases, then u just admit the limitation of those
                                                    assumptions. but that doesn't mean those assumptions are
                                                    entirely useless ... well, well, this is not related to the existential, i
                                                    suppose?! >>

                                                    I think it is related.

                                                    If one tries not to make assumptions, where does that lead?

                                                    ------------------------
                                                  • Eduard Alf
                                                    If you can t know every thought and innuendo, some of the author s meaning is necessarily hidden or mysterious. that is true, but as james implied, there is
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      "If you can't know every thought and innuendo,
                                                      some of the author's meaning is necessarily hidden
                                                      or 'mysterious."

                                                      that is true, but as james implied, there is point
                                                      at which you have to get off the pot and deal with
                                                      what the author actually said, rather than to try
                                                      to delve forever into the multitude of layers of
                                                      the "mysterious". I do not suggest that there can
                                                      not be a further level of understanding, to either
                                                      accept, reject, or amend the statement. But this
                                                      reduction to absurdity does not provide any
                                                      benefit to the discussion.

                                                      As you say "I can't help but reduce it to the
                                                      absurd...It just happens." I am finding this not
                                                      only frustrating but quite pointless.

                                                      eduard



                                                      -----Original Message-----
                                                      From: nothing@...
                                                      [mailto:nothing@...]
                                                      Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:51 AM
                                                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Subject: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up, and
                                                      can see and hear no
                                                      more...


                                                      Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

                                                      <<I have been following this discussion and this
                                                      has really
                                                      gotten to the point of absurdity.>>

                                                      It always seems to, to me...

                                                      << So what if you cant know every thought and
                                                      innuendo of the
                                                      author...If an author says something in print then
                                                      that is what is
                                                      of importance... All of that is valid and is part
                                                      of the manner in
                                                      which one might take into consideration an
                                                      author's
                                                      pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect
                                                      to the author
                                                      is going too far.>>

                                                      If you can't know every thought and innuendo, some
                                                      of the
                                                      author's meaning is necessarily hidden or
                                                      'mysterious.' As
                                                      words are perhaps sometimes adequate -- yet more
                                                      often
                                                      inexact vehicles of meaning (we have examined this
                                                      before in
                                                      color -- where you said red was red, but I pointed
                                                      out that red is
                                                      not inate, it is a measure which someone -- or
                                                      some group of
                                                      someones -- decided on, and which there can be
                                                      variance from
                                                      in experience. Of course none of that set you
                                                      wavering). And
                                                      further, meaning...is it entirely the author's, or
                                                      is it flecked with
                                                      hints of other things the author has read and
                                                      experienced and/or
                                                      heard -- whether directly attributable or not? And
                                                      then might word
                                                      choice be affected, at times containing the
                                                      author's meaning,
                                                      and at others containing internal referants --
                                                      which perhaps even
                                                      the author may be unaware? (And I will do us all
                                                      the favor of not
                                                      getting into genetic transfer of thought,
                                                      experience and idea.)

                                                      Quite honestly I wish I could take everything as
                                                      cut and dried and
                                                      hang it all neatly on my clothes-line. But to
                                                      pretend I know what
                                                      the author meant is pretentious -- even if I do a
                                                      very long study of
                                                      his work, life, etc.. The only thing I can think I
                                                      know is what I think
                                                      I am reading, and how my experience reflects on my
                                                      interpretation of what it seems to me the author
                                                      was doing, and
                                                      even that may be pushing it (depending on how
                                                      absurd you want
                                                      to get). and in the long run, what of the thing
                                                      which the author
                                                      meant? Perhaps the writing has meaning for me
                                                      which is far
                                                      more interesting than whatever the intent was (if
                                                      either of those
                                                      can be defined). Should I shun what I think and
                                                      seek out the idea
                                                      of the author which I can never attain? And should
                                                      I attain it
                                                      (though I think it impossible) there I have
                                                      grabbed the flag on the
                                                      mountain, and no one cares, knows, agrees or even
                                                      acknowledges...so the purpose is exactly what? Why
                                                      is the
                                                      author important at all?

                                                      I can't help but reduce it to the absurd...It just
                                                      happens.

                                                      Reduxio
                                                      -----------


                                                      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

                                                      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                                      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                                                      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                                                      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                    • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        << that is true, but as james implied, there is point at which you
                                                        have to get off the pot and deal with what the author actually said
                                                        >>

                                                        I am sorry but I don't believe it is true that what the author intends
                                                        makes any difference. And to some extent, the reader would not
                                                        be required to 'deal' with anything. One would assume that be
                                                        the act of reading one is involving themselves with words only --
                                                        NOT that they give a hoot what the author intends.

                                                        << But this reduction to absurdity does not provide any benefit to
                                                        the discussion...As you say "I can't help but reduce it to the
                                                        absurd...It just happens." I am finding this not only frustrating but
                                                        quite pointless.>>

                                                        So I am asked to follow the 'Duard-o-meter to the magical land of
                                                        benefit? I must say, I am also not convinced that there can be a
                                                        benefit to discussion. I'm afraid I am attached to the hip of
                                                        frivolity, or that I cannot judge benefit. If you could explain to me
                                                        just once what 'beneficial' is and how one goes about having a
                                                        'productive' discussion, I would be grateful, because then I can
                                                        achieve better things.

                                                        I suppose saying that my intended contributions are pointless is
                                                        somehow a benefit? And I suppose i should see your
                                                        suggestion as beneficial and flag my own, logically, as
                                                        detriment? And the suggestion is that my repeatedly absurd
                                                        posts are nothing but pests on the flystrip as it were? And
                                                        everyone who utters here utters for purpose -- as such great
                                                        musings about ducks and mountains I have heard that seem to
                                                        this limp chimp to have no tangent to the discussion at all?
                                                        Forgive me for responding ... it obviously was and is
                                                        inconsiderate. I should type to myself and not post as I can never
                                                        gauge the worth before I do, and I would assume, as I am
                                                        unable to do so, I should assume the restraint will be more
                                                        healthy than endulgence -- and therefore not saying anything at
                                                        all would be the greater benefit?

                                                        Sounds absurd to me...shutting up benefits the discussion? If
                                                        we all shut up, what a wonderful discussion we would have as
                                                        we might all benefit the more — another scoop of benefit for
                                                        every mouth that closes! The less we say, the better the
                                                        discussion?!

                                                        Please clarify, as I do not have your wealth of vision.

                                                        clueless in blindness and hock
                                                        -------------------------------------------
                                                      • james tan
                                                        have not been following this tread closely, but let me just throw in my two cents worth. of course it is not meant to be factual , only my interpretation, & i
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          have not been following this tread closely, but let me just throw in my two
                                                          cents worth. of course it is not meant to be 'factual', only my
                                                          interpretation, & i can't seems to see anything beyond my own perception or
                                                          interpretation, & i've no way to guarantee my perception is the same as
                                                          'reality'. as for reader reading a text by an author: as for scientific
                                                          reading, it is paramount that clarity of meaning is maintained at all time,
                                                          so that any disagreement is only a disagreement of the hypothesis, & not on
                                                          what does the hypothesis says. before one can reject or fail to reject any
                                                          hypothesis, it is assumed that one knows what the hypothesis is saying in
                                                          the first place. aspects of the hypothesis is operationalized & measurable
                                                          (a number can be attached to it). there is no ambiguity of meaning here. as
                                                          for literary reading, things are not so clear cut, i think. some authors are
                                                          pretty straightforward, such as charles dicken, but some are very ambiguous,
                                                          such as kafka. as for me, i am always puzzled by what kafka was 'really'
                                                          trying to say, & end up as confused as the characters inside his novels,
                                                          such as "the trial", "the castle", etc. there are social critique novel,
                                                          such as dickens, orwell or jane austen, existentialist novelist such as
                                                          camus & dostoyevski, phenomenologist such as sartre, etc, etc, but i can
                                                          never quite put my finger on kafka. kafka's mystery did not shut up, & most
                                                          probably will never; there is a mysterious horizons he seemed compelled to
                                                          search, but never quite get it, & like the land surveyor (in "the castle")
                                                          tried to measure, hence comprehend, the horizons of truth. there is a
                                                          certain richness in the possibilities to interpret his works, so that it
                                                          allows various perspectives on it. in the end, whether eduard or nothing
                                                          read it, both are legitimate in their interpretation, because quite apart
                                                          from the key chosen to read it or just because of the very choice that the
                                                          interpretation makes, it reveals itself to be the secret way of bringing an
                                                          author close to one's inner world. his texts challenges the readers to
                                                          understand it on a level that goes beyond the simple & immediate reading.
                                                          kafka speaks in parables & metaphors, if only because any attempts to
                                                          describe it directly is bound to fail. words block our paths. truth changes
                                                          into deceit just as soon as one tries to interpret it rationally, to put
                                                          into a objective framework. truth is subjectivity. illusion is thick. the
                                                          problem comes when one attempts to impose the paradigm of science onto
                                                          everything else, but it doesn't work because reality is much richer than
                                                          what that framework allows. man need models, frameworks, or paradigm to
                                                          understand the world or reality, & although they are useful in certain
                                                          respects, they are inherently limited, & it is ridiculous & blind to make
                                                          sweeping judgment about reality based on those models. if one is not blind,
                                                          one always admits one's strength together with one's limitation. there are
                                                          no facts, only interpretations, to quote nietzsche. this goes for text
                                                          reading as well, especially one like kafka.

                                                          james.




                                                          From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@...>
                                                          Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                          To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                                          Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up, and can see and hear no
                                                          more...
                                                          Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:12:20 -0400

                                                          "If you can't know every thought and innuendo,
                                                          some of the author's meaning is necessarily hidden
                                                          or 'mysterious."

                                                          that is true, but as james implied, there is point
                                                          at which you have to get off the pot and deal with
                                                          what the author actually said, rather than to try
                                                          to delve forever into the multitude of layers of
                                                          the "mysterious". I do not suggest that there can
                                                          not be a further level of understanding, to either
                                                          accept, reject, or amend the statement. But this
                                                          reduction to absurdity does not provide any
                                                          benefit to the discussion.

                                                          As you say "I can't help but reduce it to the
                                                          absurd...It just happens." I am finding this not
                                                          only frustrating but quite pointless.

                                                          eduard



                                                          -----Original Message-----
                                                          From: nothing@...
                                                          [mailto:nothing@...]
                                                          Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:51 AM
                                                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                          Subject: [existlist] Re: the mystery shuts up, and
                                                          can see and hear no
                                                          more...


                                                          Dear Sir 'Duard simplifier extraordinaire,

                                                          <<I have been following this discussion and this
                                                          has really
                                                          gotten to the point of absurdity.>>

                                                          It always seems to, to me...

                                                          << So what if you cant know every thought and
                                                          innuendo of the
                                                          author...If an author says something in print then
                                                          that is what is
                                                          of importance... All of that is valid and is part
                                                          of the manner in
                                                          which one might take into consideration an
                                                          author's
                                                          pronouncements, but surely "mystery" with respect
                                                          to the author
                                                          is going too far.>>

                                                          If you can't know every thought and innuendo, some
                                                          of the
                                                          author's meaning is necessarily hidden or
                                                          'mysterious.' As
                                                          words are perhaps sometimes adequate -- yet more
                                                          often
                                                          inexact vehicles of meaning (we have examined this
                                                          before in
                                                          color -- where you said red was red, but I pointed
                                                          out that red is
                                                          not inate, it is a measure which someone -- or
                                                          some group of
                                                          someones -- decided on, and which there can be
                                                          variance from
                                                          in experience. Of course none of that set you
                                                          wavering). And
                                                          further, meaning...is it entirely the author's, or
                                                          is it flecked with
                                                          hints of other things the author has read and
                                                          experienced and/or
                                                          heard -- whether directly attributable or not? And
                                                          then might word
                                                          choice be affected, at times containing the
                                                          author's meaning,
                                                          and at others containing internal referants --
                                                          which perhaps even
                                                          the author may be unaware? (And I will do us all
                                                          the favor of not
                                                          getting into genetic transfer of thought,
                                                          experience and idea.)

                                                          Quite honestly I wish I could take everything as
                                                          cut and dried and
                                                          hang it all neatly on my clothes-line. But to
                                                          pretend I know what
                                                          the author meant is pretentious -- even if I do a
                                                          very long study of
                                                          his work, life, etc.. The only thing I can think I
                                                          know is what I think
                                                          I am reading, and how my experience reflects on my
                                                          interpretation of what it seems to me the author
                                                          was doing, and
                                                          even that may be pushing it (depending on how
                                                          absurd you want
                                                          to get). and in the long run, what of the thing
                                                          which the author
                                                          meant? Perhaps the writing has meaning for me
                                                          which is far
                                                          more interesting than whatever the intent was (if
                                                          either of those
                                                          can be defined). Should I shun what I think and
                                                          seek out the idea
                                                          of the author which I can never attain? And should
                                                          I attain it
                                                          (though I think it impossible) there I have
                                                          grabbed the flag on the
                                                          mountain, and no one cares, knows, agrees or even
                                                          acknowledges...so the purpose is exactly what? Why
                                                          is the
                                                          author important at all?

                                                          I can't help but reduce it to the absurd...It just
                                                          happens.

                                                          Reduxio
                                                          -----------


                                                          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

                                                          Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                                                          (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                                                          TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                                                          existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                                                          _________________________________________________________________
                                                          Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                                                        • Eduard Alf
                                                          hi james, the fact is what the author puts forth as his/her opinion. You may wish to make an interpretation of
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Sep 5, 2001
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            hi james,

                                                            << there are no facts, only interpretations>>

                                                            the "fact" is what the author puts forth as
                                                            his/her opinion. You may wish to make an
                                                            interpretation of this opinion or accept/reject it
                                                            outright. But ultimately, one has to come the
                                                            point of recognizing that this opinion is
                                                            something which is attached to the author. It is
                                                            the author's opinion and on that basis can be
                                                            taken to be a "fact". The discussion had gotten
                                                            off onto a tangent, in trying to focus upon some
                                                            "mystery" behind the fact or perhaps some yet
                                                            unknown characteristic of the author which may
                                                            help us to understand this "fact".

                                                            I do not disagree with the idea that one should
                                                            get to know the author. This may indeed be
                                                            beneficial understanding facts/opinions that may
                                                            be stated in the form of parables. But the
                                                            tangent that we got on, was that there could never
                                                            be an understanding, because instead we would be
                                                            too busy trying to find out more and more about
                                                            the mystery. This leads to absurdity.

                                                            eduard
                                                          • nothing@theabsurd.com
                                                            ... I find this a claustrophobic situation, limiting, and horrifically disinteresting. If this were made law, I would never read again. ... I do. I don t see
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Sep 6, 2001
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              > the "fact" is what the author puts forth as
                                                              > his/her opinion. You may wish to make an
                                                              > interpretation of this opinion or accept/reject it
                                                              > outright. But ultimately, one has to come the
                                                              > point of recognizing that this opinion is
                                                              > something which is attached to the author. >>

                                                              I find this a claustrophobic situation, limiting, and horrifically
                                                              disinteresting. If this were made law, I would never read again.

                                                              > I do not disagree with the idea that one should
                                                              > get to know the author. >>

                                                              I do. I don't see the point or benefit. Except in satisfying an
                                                              interest or curiosity -- if you have it.

                                                              > But the tangent that we got on, was that there could never
                                                              > be an understanding, because instead we would be
                                                              > too busy trying to find out more and more about
                                                              > the mystery. This leads to absurdity.

                                                              There is nothing wrong with admitting to the impossible.

                                                              What I think many fail with and why they continually search to
                                                              something else is that they find their perspective and interest not
                                                              good enough and not well justified on its own. For some reason
                                                              it needs validation. Validation can be saught by capturing what
                                                              the author meant as that is the ultimate is it not? I suggest it isn't.
                                                              And I suggest I can add far more to a work without the limitation
                                                              of the author as 'god' having devine right over meaning.

                                                              I think the need for security in 'vision' is what forces so many to
                                                              find an umbrella...and there consistently miss the joys of the
                                                              rain.

                                                              unthinking.
                                                              ---------------
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.