[Kierkegaardian] Re: Hmmm...
> Continuing to lay aside the squirly-whirly, you have again writtenas 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 betrustworthy. 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.
PS: Here, it is now almost an hour into 2006. Wow!
- 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 email@example.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.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, nnn88388 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
> > > Continuing to lay aside the squirly-whirly, you have again
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> BTW I've enjoyed all the forum_dorum the past few months. Thanks.
> Happy New Year and Happy St. Basil's Day.