Re: Clarity of Thought:
- Dear Reg,
I am sorry to have misinterpreted you when you wrote the following in your message #1352:
"Will, be careful. Lazy people, idiots, hecklers, imposters, and other misfits are not equipped to spot those things that are not qualitatively decisive. Jim, no offense intended."
I assumed you were thinking of myself when you wrote this, especially as you added "Jim, no offense intended", and your post included Willy's message #1350, which included a quote from my message #1348.
If you were not thinking of myself, why did you write the post? No one else in recent days had strongly disagreed with Willy.
It also seems strange that a new member of the forum (yourself) should warn an old member of the forum (Willy) about other members of the forum. I think Willy knows the regular contributors to this forum pretty well by now, and he is quite capable of looking after himself. Or are you concerned that new people will join the forum and cause trouble for Willy?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Hi Luke,
And thank you for your interesting answer. I am glad to find people
like you, Jim Stuart and Don A on this forum.
I have been considering what you wrote about melancholy and formed
the following judgement of it:
All in all melancholy is the form of depair quite characteristic of
the category of aesthetism. Or perhaps:
Melancholy is the emotional state of spirit of the aesthetical man.
If this is quite in lign with what you have written - and I think it
is - then I cannot disagree with what you wrote and I think you
pointed at the right area in the book - I think you could have
pointed at the place where he's expressed that he is the unhappiest
This being said, I'd like to come back to the opening issue of the
rotation principle. My memory may have betrayed me but I cannot
remember exactly that K has explicitly advocated for this. It may
seem a generally agreed extention to the kierkegaardian aesthetical
aedificium but I would like to dispute it a bit.
See, I perceive a progression in A papers from lighter or more
immediate forms of aesthetical pursuits to more indirect or
intellectually reflected ones of a still purely aesthetical nature,
and I think this is quite incompatible with the rotative theory.
If you would just accept this idea that the sheer rotative pattern
pulls you backward in the realm of the aesthetical for it has some
mechanical character quite incomptible with an aesthetical
elaboration, I think we'd agree 100 percent.
I think indeed that John/Johannes the seducer is a very elaborated
figure, the mark of a very, of a highly intellectual conception of
the aesthetical values. Let me elaborate a bit on this:
Johannes is looking for the actual construction of the most
elaborate form of seduction ever attained in his life so that all
that came before (as exemplified in the previous A papers) is
sublimated in this new form of aesthetical achievement.
Cordelia is not either exactly a poor and worthless victim in the
story. She is an important figure of the aesthetical category. She
has by nature the whole possibility, she has not been spoiled by
life and ultimately she has the most tragic and aesthetically most
magnificient destiny. She is the perfect occasion for a true and
perfect aesthetical union and incarnates a true and perfectly
classic tragical character. She is not just another girl but she is
the ultimate and most magnificient /victim/.
In my opinion, what you depicted as the rotative pattern of the
aethetical is much more applicable to earlier forms of the
aesthetical (like Don Juan's repetitive maniacal behaviour as it is
explained in was it the second section (?) of A papers) than to the
later forms, and especially that of the pair John/Cordelia.
If you should accept this idea of a progression in the spirituality
of the aesthetical, I would agree with you on the following question:
What comes after the case of John/Cordelia?
My personal answer would possibly be either a very deep melancholy,
leading to possible suicidal behaviours or a radical shift in
Indeed I can't really see an after Cordelia for John or an after
John for Cordelia which would overtop their story and remain in the
aesthetical. And should there be one (or even several) more step(s),
there would always be the final step which would call the 'what
So I basicly would agree with you that the aesthetical is
essentially a melancholic state but not because it is endlessly and
mindlessly levelling down everything to the rank of the accidental
and worthless (this for me is the spontaneous erotic case) but
rather because it is cornering up the subject in an aesthetical
dungeon from which the only escape is a dangerous and critical jump
out of the window from the aesthetical tower and unto the unknown.
It was pleasure trying to make headway in this matter. I'd like to
take the present occasion to thank Jim Stuart for his answer too. I
wish to let him time to achieve his reading of Either/or before
discussing the specific issues he brings up in his answer and I am
sure it will be a pleasure for the three of us to resume our present
discussion when he's done with it.
Looking forward to exchanging further views, let me express my