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

[Kierkegaardian] Re: Hmmm...

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    ... as one who, while demonstrating that he himself understands the question, nevertheless refrains from presenting the reader with a direct result – as is
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > Continuing to lay aside the squirly-whirly, you have again written
      as one who, while demonstrating that he himself understands the
      question, nevertheless refrains from presenting the reader with a
      direct result – as is exactly and self-consistently correct. <

      Ben, I can handle your slice & dice with aplomb, but praise? My God, I
      do not really know what to do with it. Well, yes I do; tell the truth.
      It was not by design that I set aside the squirly-whirly, but by
      necessity. Our lemon tree was beyond loaded and I had spent the day
      manually squeezing the juice out of more than several bags of freshly
      picked lemons and my hands were so cramped up that I typed only as
      much as I could before the pain cut me short. Well, maybe that was a
      bit of an exaggeration, but squeezing the juice out of all those
      lemons did leave me looking like Captain Claw.

      > And yes, I believe that he believed. I believe him to be
      trustworthy. I believe that he understood his authorship as a task;
      that he understood himself within that task; and that part of his task
      was to produce a literature in which his own subjectivity was entirely
      exposed; and that this task was only possible as he exposed himself to
      himself, as he became transparent to himself; and that this is only
      possible, for anyone, if he is willing to be himself; and that this is
      only possible if a person stands before a Telos, before which he can
      relate himself to himself as a self. I believe that only if a person
      stands before his Creator, Who is Love - and not some figment
      (fig-leaf) of his understanding - can he become transparent to
      himself, as himself. And how else should he be able to be willing to
      be himself; except that he learns that he is a self; except that he
      trusts the one from whom he learns this; except that this one loves
      him? Is it not only in this way that the self is built up (edified);
      only in this way that the self learns to love; only in this way that
      the self becomes itself – that it is loved? Is this not exactly the
      Work of Love? <

      I understand your statement, and I understand that it represents your
      understanding. I would only add that such an understanding may also
      come from a different direction, that being the seeing of the falsity
      of a presently occupied position. In this, there is nothing to do but
      try and understand what remains, for the task has come to an end with
      false position. In this, the task takes on a different flavor and the
      description tends to whirl with the squirrels, taking on a form of
      negation that appears disrespectful to everything it touches. There is
      no risk in letting go when one begins with the letting go. There can
      be no holding on when the holder is seen to be the false.

      In reference to Works of Love, self-renunciation is both the means and
      the goal. If one stumbles into the means the goal has already been
      met. I have said before, and I will say it again, there is one room
      that one may enter, a finding room in which one finds oneself as SK
      speaks to, but the entry for each does not have to be, and probably
      cannot be, through the same door. The entry determines the form of our
      speech, but what we speak about is that singular room. It is then that
      the communication must be perfected if an understanding is to be
      reached; it takes time and effort to shift meanings about until the
      languages mesh. Perhaps the time was ripe for the meshing of our
      language. I do not know.

      Well, I end up preaching, but at least the lemons got done.
      ----Capt. Claw

      PS: Here, it is now almost an hour into 2006. Wow!
    • Will Brown
      Hi JimR, in hindsight I can see that I goofed. I had assumed the search for the bright line difference between us had been put to bed again. We reached a form
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi JimR, in hindsight I can see that I goofed. I had assumed the
        search for the bright line difference between us had been put to bed
        again. We reached a form where we agreed that we put the key to the
        process that runs from the esthetic to Religiousness B in different
        places. Now, you had said that you put up with his indirect
        communication and that also happens to be where I placed my key. My
        hypothetical question was a knock back response, meant only in the
        best of humor, a way of tweaking your nose, so to speak. I found your
        response very adequately representing your view and thanked you for
        it. I saw it as one last touch of the rumble between us, like a storm
        moving off for other parts, and thanked you for it.

        My only intent in the statement you attached was to communicate with
        Nick. I did not have your view in mind, nor did I intend an indirect
        response. In hindsight, I see that it had to be taken that way, so the
        error was mine. I apologize. He and I go back years and I knew what he
        was referring to, so I responded with a form that told him that we
        were speaking the same language. The reference to the bear was because
        we had humorously tagged that language as bear-speak. ----willy


        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "<none>" <jamesrovira@y...> wrote:
        >
        > Or you already know what's on both sides, Will :). For some people
        the door stands alone in open space, with no walls around it --
        everything is quite transparent.
        >
        > I didn't find anything "wanting." I know what's there and am
        already carrying it with me when I'm introduced to it again. So the
        real question is, should I humor the doorkeeper or not?
        >
        > Not, because I have better things to do.
        >
        > Now the more important question is, why is it so important to -you-
        to know who or what -I- am? What I know or don't know? What does
        Kierkegaard say about that kind of thinking -- thinking that justifies
        itself by comparison with another person?
        >
        > I could ask this of other people too.
        >
        > Jim R.
        >
        > Will Brown <wilbro99@y...> wrote: Yo, Nick, you have the knack
        of knocking on my door. There is more on
        > the other side or there is nothing on the other side. Let me turn that
        > inside out. One says mucho and the other says nada. Either it is the
        > same door and the one who goes through judges which it is, or there
        > are two doors, one of which the one who goes through goes through and
        > finds nothing, and the other of which the one who goes through can't
        > go through and also finds nothing. One finding is a loss and the other
        > finding is also a loss. How can I make much of that difference? It
        > reminds me of that ditty about the bear going over the mountain.
        > ----willy
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Will Brown
        We had a Meyer years ago. Presently, two citrus trees, both dwarf: a red grapefruit, just loaded, and a Eureka, a year around producer here. The back yard is
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          We had a Meyer years ago. Presently, two citrus trees, both dwarf: a
          red grapefruit, just loaded, and a Eureka, a year around producer
          here. The back yard is mine and it is full to overflowing with
          wildflowers, mostly California natives. The front yard belongs to
          she-who-must-be-obeyed and is a more formal garden setting; no grass
          except the to-be-pulled variety.

          Forum-dorum, yes, there is this about SK that brings out the
          subjectivity of each of us like knights errant to the joust. I took to
          heart your suggestion to JR to read Chapter I of CUP again and found
          the following to quote from the intro:

          "The objective issue, then, would be about the truth of Christianity.
          The subjective issue is about the individual's relation to
          Christianity. Simply stated: How can I, Johannes Climacus, share in
          the happiness that Christianity promises? The issue pertains to me
          alone, partly because, if properly presented, it will pertain to
          everyone in the same way, and partly because all the others do have
          faith already as something given, as a trifle they do not consider
          very valuable, or as a trifle amounting to something only when decked
          out worth a few demonstrations. So the presentation of the issue in
          not some sort of immodesty on my part, but merely a kind of lunacy."
          (CUP, Hong, p. 17; Lowrie, p. 20)

          I am not sure what he is saying, but his mention of presenting it in
          such a manner as to include everyone, which says to me that an old
          pagan such as myself could relate to his presenting, and the fact that
          there will be some lunacy involved gives me hope that I will
          understand it. ----willy
          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, nnn88388 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > > Continuing to lay aside the squirly-whirly, you have again
          > written
          > > as one who, while demonstrating that he himself understands the
          > > question, nevertheless refrains from presenting the reader with a
          > > direct result – as is exactly and self-consistently correct. <
          > >
          > > Ben, I can handle your slice & dice with aplomb, but praise? My
          > God, I
          > > do not really know what to do with it. Well, yes I do; tell the
          > truth.
          > > It was not by design that I set aside the squirly-whirly, but by
          > > necessity. Our lemon tree was beyond loaded and I had spent the day
          > > manually squeezing the juice out of more than several bags of
          > freshly
          > > picked lemons and my hands were so cramped up that I typed only as
          > > much as I could before the pain cut me short. Well, maybe that was
          > a
          > > bit of an exaggeration, but squeezing the juice out of all those
          > > lemons did leave me looking like Captain Claw.
          >
          > Willy, lemons ahhh. What kind of lemon tree do you have? We just
          > special ordered and have two bags of Meyer lemons in the fridge.
          > After squeezing the juice I actually eat what's left, including the
          > rind! Faye brought back a large bag of them from a friend's lemon
          > tree in Florida last year and we loved them; we've been hooked ever
          > since.
          > BTW I've enjoyed all the forum_dorum the past few months. Thanks.
          > Happy New Year and Happy St. Basil's Day.
          > Nick
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.