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

tork a mad 'n

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    I have considered this a bit Louise. Perhaps pseudonymous self-argument is a form of nepotism out of which both favor and security are self-derived. Consider
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I have considered this a bit Louise. Perhaps pseudonymous
      self-argument is a form of nepotism out of which both favor and
      security are self-derived. Consider that such a degree
      self-containment could essentially be self-vacating even moreso than
      classic nihilism.Nepotism is essentially about trust issues and
      self-promotion is it not? If the self is essentially only promoted to
      the self it cannot be any kind of ontological activity, as self cannot
      give being to self.Therefore: neither is it ontical in a directly
      experienced sense during the activity as it is removed from any
      realization in its process of impossible (actually vacating)
      self-promotion.One falls into this situation by rejecting what seems
      to be because it only seems to be. An existentialist lives with the
      propositional. Everything is in motion relative to everything else.
      There is no standing still.Creativity causes, produces, fills and vacates.

      Kierkegaard
      pretender bard
      could not unchange
      by being strange
      so he welped him on a page
      for weaning in a later age

      tc
    • louise
      Now then Trini [without yr dog boys]. Kierkegaard the pretender?? Interesting. So that s how you see pseudonymous communication. He wasn t a bard, though,
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Now then Trini [without yr dog boys]. Kierkegaard the pretender??
        Interesting. So that's how you see pseudonymous communication. He
        wasn't a bard, though, any more than Nietzsche. Like old Heidegger
        said, there is secret kinship between thinking and poetic creation.
        Nevertheless, "they dwell on the most widely separated mountains."
        Now that is the kind of apartheid I believe in. I'll never
        understand you scientists. Call me ethereal. Incongruity is the
        essence of humour. Still not claimimg to be funny. Louise

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@w...>
        wrote:
        >
        > I have considered this a bit Louise. Perhaps pseudonymous
        > self-argument is a form of nepotism out of which both favor and
        > security are self-derived. Consider that such a degree
        > self-containment could essentially be self-vacating even moreso
        than
        > classic nihilism.Nepotism is essentially about trust issues and
        > self-promotion is it not? If the self is essentially only promoted
        to
        > the self it cannot be any kind of ontological activity, as self
        cannot
        > give being to self.Therefore: neither is it ontical in a directly
        > experienced sense during the activity as it is removed from any
        > realization in its process of impossible (actually vacating)
        > self-promotion.One falls into this situation by rejecting what
        seems
        > to be because it only seems to be. An existentialist lives with the
        > propositional. Everything is in motion relative to everything else.
        > There is no standing still.Creativity causes, produces, fills and
        vacates.
        >
        > Kierkegaard
        > pretender bard
        > could not unchange
        > by being strange
        > so he welped him on a page
        > for weaning in a later age
        >
        > tc
        >
      • Knott
        The Dad said: as self cannot give being to self. Ahem...and by what great mathematical equation (which I don t believe in) have you come to this standard,
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 22, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          The Dad said: "as self cannot give being to self."

          Ahem...and by what great mathematical equation (which I don't
          believe in) have you come to this standard, locked, bolted and
          assured conclusion? The self gives being to dreams and thoughts and
          wonder. A wonder why a self cannot think of self and thereby give
          being. Apparently some "crazy" people do it all the
          time...delusions. They create themself as perhaps something they are
          not. In my thought pattern it is more likely that the self creates
          the self and gives it self being rather than the opposite.

          Part of my arguement would be exactly that you said this thing with
          which I disagree, and think you cannot prove...yet you have used it
          as proof and believe. One of us is likely delusional or likes to
          make up facts which he is then determined to believe, because
          it "proves" his point. Whether it proves mine or yours, the veil is
          thin. The point is, as there tips a scale of right OR wrong, you and
          I cannot both be correct in belief...one of us has delusions in this
          fact...that is almost necessarily the self creating an alternate of
          the reality, and an example. If one can make up a fact, one can make
          up, or give being to self.

          Either that, or you have just been sloppy with language yet again.

          Surprise Me Knott
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.