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

Re: Clarifications

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    ... Yes, you are right, I was not thinking, the balance must be perserved at all cost. Apologies all around! Sorry about that! He who lives in a glass house
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, nnn88388 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Burns
      > > <jeff_burnsca@y...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hi Don,
      > > >
      > > > I am greatly sorry to have given you the impression I was
      > > associating with the empty humor of Mr nnn88388, Mr Willy & Mr Jim.
      > > > They seem to be thinking I go along their way & no matter my
      > every
      > > attempt to politely deny this, they read in my successive denials
      > the
      > > confirmation that they wish to read in them, a confirmation which I
      > > never intended to place in them.
      > > > I am a bit disappointed that you could not see anything
      > worthwhile
      > > in my mail called 'Delights' but perhaps I was only being
      > pointless in it.
      > > > I had only meant to ask whether in your conception of what K
      > wrote
      > > in Either/Or, and especially in the papers of A, the beautiful
      > lied in
      > > the eye of the observer, in the object, in the relation between
      > them
      > > or as an ideal which would sort of belong to the divine.
      > > > In my opinion there was not so much mist about the point -
      > perhaps
      > > it all came from the second-hand material but perhaps not - but I
      > want
      > > to assure you it was a sincere and serious question.
      > > > As to my other mails, please forget them for they seem to have
      > > caused a highway to misunderstandings ; I only intended to point at
      > > what I conceived as a weakness in Jim's argumentation:
      > > >
      > > > that the aesthetic could be an orientation without having the
      > > beautiful first as a direction ; it appeared to me a contradiction.
      > > This was all I meant.
      > > >
      > > > Sorry if my tone suggested an association with these people; I do
      > > not know them ; I can't see the community they seem to fancy
      > between
      > > us. It is a mystery to me. If someone can give me a clue, it could
      > > help clarifying the situation.
      > > >
      > > > Furthermore I strongly disapprove of and wish to state formally
      > my
      > > indignation at the use of rude words in the context of what is
      > > claiming to be a place for educative discussions in its frontpage.
      > It
      > > is a scandal!
      > > >
      > > > I am quite surprised and not very pleased by the liberal manners
      > > some have shown towards a new member they hardly knew anything
      > about.
      > > I wanted not to express my discomfort before I was certain it was
      > not
      > > me who was exceedingly touchy or even paranoid about such things
      > but
      > > enough is enough and it has reached a point I can no longer
      > tolerate.
      > > >
      > > > I have appreciated your previous answers to my questions, Don. I
      > was
      > > looking forward to be reading from you this time and was truly
      > upset
      > > to read that you thought these people were my gang. They are not.
      > > >
      > > > I wish to express apologies if I was offensive to you by any
      > means
      > > in my mail.
      > > > Sorry, sorry, sorry.
      > > >
      > > > Looking forward to be reading your next reflections,
      > > > Best regards,
      > > > Jeffrey Burns
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > PS:
      > > > Willy; how to make it plain without being rude? Give me a break!
      > > > nnn88388; rude is neither funny nor spiritual.
      > > > Jim; you'd better watch your mouth a bit more carefully, I should
      > > think, for my disorientation was only the product of your
      > suggestions.
      > > >
      > >
      > > Mr. Jeffrey, understand me well, understand me well! What about
      > poor
      > > me ; what am I to do with vocables ? ? ? Ack! I say! ----Uncle
      > Willy
      > >
      > > PS: If you don't get it, then there is nothing to get! In other
      > words,
      > > you will only get it if you get it!
      > >
      >
      > Uncle Billy, this is an awkward question for me to ask you, but,
      > have you lost your nose ring again? Fumble around, I'm sure it's
      > somewhere in the house or in the vegetable patch. And be careful
      > you don't disturb the delicate balance.
      > npk-bfstplk
      >

      Yes, you are right, I was not thinking, the balance must be perserved
      at all cost. Apologies all around! Sorry about that! He who lives in a
      glass house should not toss bricks around. humble_pie_willy
    • Jim Stuart
      Dear Jeffrey Burns, I am sympathetic to much of what you write in your message #1165. I agree the writings of Nick (nnn88388), Willy Brown and Jim Rovira do
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 9, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Jeffrey Burns,

        I am sympathetic to much of what you write in your message #1165.

        I agree the writings of Nick (nnn88388), Willy Brown and Jim Rovira do not always match up to the standards of Kierkegaard's ethical individual. I think those of us who would term ourselves "followers of Kierkegaard" ought to aim to appropriate the mood, tone and orientation of K's ethical individual. (I think this is a minimum requirement - we may of course want to go further and aim to appropriate the mood, tone and orientation of K's religious individual.) Such an appropriation is incompatible with sarcasm, empty humour, foul language which may cause offence, and the gratuitous insulting of other members of the forum.

        Having said that I find this point of yours to be hypocritical:

        "Furthermore I strongly disapprove of and wish to state formally my indignation at the use of rude words in the context of what is claiming to be a place for educative discussions in its frontpage. It is a scandal!"

        I say you are being hypocritical here as in your message #1104, you use the expression "Fuck". (Up until your post #1104, no other member of the forum had used foul language in their conversations with you.) Now perhaps where you come from this is not considered as "rude" a word as "shit"/"shite", but my own understanding is that such a word is likely to cause as much offence as "shit"/"shite".

        Yours,

        Jim Stuart


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jim Stuart
        Dear Jim, Kierkegaard argued that it was infinitely better to exist as an ethical individual than as an aesthetic individual. Thus, if we are to be faithful to
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 9, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Jim,

          Kierkegaard argued that it was infinitely better to exist as an ethical individual than as an aesthetic individual. Thus, if we are to be faithful to the spirit of K, we should aim to conduct ourselves within this forum as the ethical individual would conduct himself (or herself).

          I think the ethical individual would certainly speak plainly and would not baulk at causing offence if that was in the interests of the good, but he/she would be polite and fair.

          I also get annoyed when I think people either aren't really trying to understand another person's point of view, or get it wrong and insist they're right, or are just dishonest about the whole thing, but I think it would be unethical of me to tell another member of the forum that they are "full of shite".

          Yours,

          Jim Stuart


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jim Stuart
          Jim, I agree that we need to distinguish between the nice and the ethical , and I also feel no ethical obligation to be nice to anyone at all times and
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 9, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Jim,

            I agree that "we need to distinguish between the "nice" and the "ethical"", and I also "feel no ethical obligation to be "nice" to anyone at all times and in all circumstances". I was not being nice when telling Jeff that I thought he was being hypocritical or telling you that I thought you were being unethical.

            For myself, when making negative judgements, I think it best to judge the act rather than the person. Thus "that act was hypocritical/unethical" rather than "you are full of shite".

            Having re-read all the correspondence between yourself, Willy, Rick, Don and Jeff, I didn't get the impression that Jeff was a ringer, or that he had in place "a very specific reading of K". I thought he was just picking up ideas from the rest of you during the conversations, and thus deepening his understanding of K.

            Further, I know from my own experience that I have not always understood first time what you were on about, even though you claimed your posts were perfectly clear.

            Finally, I cannot comment on Kierkegaard as a person, as I have only read a number of his publications, and I am no expert about his life. However, I think you slightly misunderstand what I have been saying. I am not saying that we "followers of Kierkegaard" should follow the example he set in his life, but that we should aim to match up to the ideal characters (the ethical individual and/or the religious individual) he portrays in his books.

            Further, K did not say "imitate me", but rather "imitate Jesus Christ".

            Yours,

            Jim Stuart


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jim Stuart
            Jim R., Let me comment on two of your paragraphs. First, your second paragraph: The point of references to K s life is to raise the possibility that K. may
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 9, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Jim R.,

              Let me comment on two of your paragraphs. First, your second paragraph:

              "The point of references to K's life is to raise the possibility that K. may not have taken his words as you are. He may not have seen a contradiction between his words and his own behavior. Furthermore, it's incredible to me that you believe K. would tell people to only pay attention to his words and -not- his life. Do you really think this?"

              I don't think I went as far as to say I believed that "K. would tell people to only pay attention to his words and -not- his life." From what I have read, K was sorry for some of the things he did in his life, and like any sincere Christian who had a conception of himself as a sinner, he would not want people to imitate his life "warts and all".

              In your fourth paragraph you write:

              "I don't see anything inherently unethical in saying someone is "full of shite" (just as side note...I took that post to be somewhat playful, hence the Brit. spelling -- you're not Brit, are you?), esp. in comparison to actually being in that condition. If you want to cite Christian example, there's Christ calling the Pharisees snakes and vipers in addition to hypocrites, Paul saying he wished false teachers would castrate themselves, etc."

              First, I am British, so perhaps I missed the "playful" element of your insult. Second, I share the attitude of Don Anderson (see his message #1161). Third, I think you, like Willy, lack the clarity of thought to pull off humour successfully. (Ben has made this point previously with respect to Willy - see his message #909.)

              Yours,

              Jim Stuart


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jim Stuart
              Jim R., I agree with you when you write I don t get the impression [K] saw himself at fault when writing his own polemic. When I was thinking of the warts
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 10, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim R.,

                I agree with you when you write "I don't get the impression [K] saw himself at fault when writing his own polemic."

                When I was thinking of the "warts and all" aspect of K's life, I was thinking of his wayward behaviour as a young man.

                From my limited knowledge of his polemical condemnations of various of his contemporaries in his later years, I think his accusations were harsh, but fair and fully justified.

                Yours,

                Jim Stuart


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.