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

Re: Common and individ

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    Mr Jeffrey, your response has brought a smile to my face. Yes, methinks you did not just fall off that turnip truck. I ll do a point by point run through so
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 1, 2005
      Mr Jeffrey, your response has brought a smile to my face. Yes,
      methinks you did not just fall off that turnip truck. I'll do a point
      by point run through so that the last point you made has, at least, a
      preface (to be explained then).

      > Are you accusing me to be a liar ? I did not know we were acquainted
      well enough to allow you that! Still you have a point I am neither
      turnip-made nor piece of machinery. I am all blood and flesh. As to
      spirit, I can't understand either K or Jim so I am very probably quite
      little of that.

      My old pappy, bless his heart, told me that this internet talk was the
      work of the Devil; something about never knowing how far behind the
      words the speaker was. Then he said something it took me a long time
      to cotton on to, "Always look for that second reflection." As to your
      assumption of being very little of spirit, how can you know that if
      you don't understand what spirit means?

      >No need to say I don't understand you, clear enough in itself and for
      itself, and I can bearly understand how I managed to write what I
      wrote to Nick. It must be divine inspiration. Or perhaps it was this
      very moving film I was talking of in the very first words.

      Yup, perhaps, but shades of SK and his notion of Governance;
      especially the divine inspiration part.

      >Yes I did understand last time what I understood in your last time
      first paragraph for there is stated that "from Either/Or to"... So I
      supposed Either/Or was considered a beginning. Was that wrong too ?

      I missed that one, sorry. It was too subtle for my stodgy mind.

      >How dare you asking me to get off my eyes from the question I am
      asking ? I see it as a crucial ethical question. As long as nobody has
      provided a perfect explanation which I may feel perfectly confident
      with I must focus on this question and no other! -You- are being
      devilish with your suggestion! Shame on you!

      Yeah, well, so long as you got the second-reflection echo all is well.
      Now, this shift from an explanation to a perfect one is perfectly
      divine. And, yes, that echo, if not inadvertent, was heard.

      >I don't get your next point either. You suggest I should find out
      what ethical means before I can ask my question. I suppose you mean by
      that that I don't know what it means and further that to understand it
      I should turn myself to K.

      Oh heavens, it was just a thought in context. If you tell me that
      something does not make sense to you, that you do not get it, then how
      can you say anything other than that about it. Who knows, that which
      you do not get may be in complete agreement with you when you do get
      it. Stranger things have happened.

      >I disagree! And this is the disagreement I intended to point at when
      I spoke of a catch-22. You seem to me to be claiming that it is not
      possible to understand the ethical without understanding K. Thus it
      seems to me that you restrict the validity of what K is saying. For
      you seem to be suggesting that K is not concerned with what the
      ethical truly means but eventually needed a word to attach to an idea
      his reflection had brought him to and which had no name, quite
      independently from the common meaning of ethics. He could have choosen
      another word: calister, macademia, or coconut indifferently for he is
      defining the word by his use. He chose ethical out no reason, just for
      fun, to stir or shake or, in a word, for the sake of blur. No sir, I
      don't buy it!

      Fiddlesticks, you have changed the focus. Let me redo your sentence to
      fit what I said. "You seem to me to be claiming that it is not
      possible to understand the [meaning K gives to the] ethical without
      understanding [the meaning] K [gives to it]. Yes, that is what I am
      claiming. SK ties the ethical to something he calls the Good. His
      book, Purity of Heart, is the best source for the meaning of that
      term. You can find the online book in the links to the left.

      >As far as I am concerned I take that when K refers to the ethical he
      intend to relate what he is saying to the common idea of ethics. Of
      course there is room enough in the field of ethics for adding
      inclinations, variations and articulate a personal conception of
      ethics within ethics. If there is not in ethics, where the devil is
      there that ? But not to the point, or so I sense, that one completely
      lose track of the original idea of ethics.

      What if SK were not trying to get shut of your notion of ethics, but
      to transform it, and that, not by changing the meaning of the term,
      but the person attached to the meaning? Wouldn't another meaning of
      reflexive terms would come into being? This would be the transition he
      speaks to throughout his works, and especially in the Chapter 2 of
      Part 2 of E/O. That different meaning appears in the meaning of what
      it means, to choose.

      And speaking of quotes, visit the web page referenced in my profile
      and find presently 620 quotes from the works of SK. I chose each one
      because it said what I wanted it to say. Smashing, what. I mean, found
      money.

      >Conclusion I must be able to identify the connection between ethics
      in common-sense and K's use of the ethical. I say!

      Zippedy-doo-dah, neatly done. I debated beginning and ending with this
      statement (yeah, I know, should have done), but then I would have been
      derived of the pleasure of pushing words around. Circles like this are
      not uncommon here, whether planned or the upshot of the natural
      propensity of disputes to return to the bright line from which they
      began. In my view of SK's works, there is a singular bright line, that
      being the source that powers the singular idea coursing through the
      veins of his works; in effect, the heart of his message; the
      transition.

      As you extract the meaning of that transition from his words, you
      define the difference you see between the esthetic and
      ethico-religious spheres he champions. That transition is then the
      stage upon which he brings Christianity into play as the culmination
      of the transition. But first, the transition, else all that follows is
      speculation.

      See, even in closing I must push words around. I am posting a quote or
      so from Postscript that I see speaking directly to that transition.
      Make of it what you will. Our next circle depends upon what you make
      of it. ----willy

      PS: nickel, I found it; that's a garbage can, not my tomatoes! Would
      you stand by me on this?

      PPS: meddy, sorry to hear you are allergic to cats.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.