Re: [Kierkegaardian] Pluralism
- Hi Polly, how's the abyss business? Give my best to you know who.
First off, you have poeticized what I 'actually' said, but that's
fine; the meaning is the same. I see a 'pitfall' in the Christian
interpretation of SK's route to becoming a Christian. If SK is read as
saying that there is a discontinuity, read abyss, along the way in
which the self must be negated, that negation would also bring the
belief held to an end; the logical connection, no believer, no belief.
That would be the 'ugly ditch' SK refers to.
If that reading is omitted as being only a rhetorical device, why then
the abyss is bridged over and all that is required is to really
believe, not just pretend. The exhortation is to really to get with
it, passionately. This would require changing the meaning of the
"passion of the infinite" as "a suitable setting" to a disposition,
from a 'be-do' to a 'do.' Of course, not being a Christian, I can only
speculate that such a problem would arise.
Second off, is your pluralistic stance grounded in the notion of a
transition as an awakening/salvation common to all? Do you see a
generic condition such as Jim S proposed SK is proposing as a leap
from innocence into guilt, or as I would propose a leap from freedom
into a temporal sense of self bound to the past?
I seem to remember that there was a language that didn't have a past
tense, but I am not sure of that. What would a tenseless language do
to the temporal sense of self? If no sleep, no awakening necessary. Of
course, if we are predestined to be born asleep, or the
memory/imagination complex sets us up, a identity then a generic
awakening would be necessary. Anyhow, the above is a few random