Re: Does SK have a coherent account of the self?
- Will, comments below...
>>>Any who wishes to enter this discussion, please feel free to doso.<<<
I agree. Let's form a crowd. ;-)
I'll begin at the end as well. I want to reproduce the quote below
and make some comments.
"Perhaps someone is amazed when he has read these books, but no one
more that I when I turn around now (after having been an author for
approximately seven years and just as if in one breath) and look at
what has been accomplished and with almost a shiver of amazement see
that the whole thing is actually one thought, something I quite
clearly understand now, although in the beginning I had not expected
to go on being an author for so many years, nor did I have such a
grand objective. Philosophically, this is a movement of reflection
that is described backward and is first understood when it is
accomplished." (PV, Hong, Supplement, p. 255) (Pap. X 5 B 207, 1850)
As I read this, I am amazed that he is summarizing his entire series
of authorships in a way that includes his act of summarization
within the authorships described. (Aka, this is another expression
of second order consciousess /by/ second order consciousness.) One
who holds that single idea can discern that single idea in the way
he says that his whole series of authorships is the expression of a
single idea. The idea might be expressed as the understanding of the
difference between understanding and not understanding. It's as if
the element of time is removed and the end and the beginning are
one, an act which cannot begin but from the conclusion. That is, the
conclusion that the conclusion was operative from the
beginning, /is/ the conclusion that is operative from the beginning.
>>>I think we have an understanding in common that we can play offof.
Let me ramble on a bit according to my understanding in this matter.
You can judge whether or not I am speaking to your understanding. I
return to your statement, "I see a second power consciousness
apprehending itself as second power consciousness." That is the point
I see SK making in the fourth quote below. That apprehension /is/
consciousness to the 2nd power. That apprehension is the new
inwardness incommensurable with the first inwardness that SK refers
in F&T. That apprehension is the appropriation that is the 'leap'
the esthetic sphere to the ethical-religious sphere, there being a
disjunction between the influence of the two spheres.<<<
Yes, I agree we seem to share understanding, that "one thought."
Yes, I see what you get at in quoting me. To quote you, "[second
power consciousness apprehending itself as second power
consciousness] /is/ consciousness to the second power." Absolutely.
Where that consciousness of the difference between first power
consciousness and second power consciousness is missing, what is
being described is first power consciousness. Where consciousness of
that difference is not missing, what is being described (again, here
and now) is second power consciousness, which is not distinct from
the consciousness forming the description.
Here's another way the idea could move itself into words.
Kierkegaard talks about a difference between the state of being in
ignorance/doubt/angst/despair over oneself (which he says can only
be inadequately expressed as ignorance/doubt/angst/despair over the
world) and the state in which there is awareness of a
recollectable/repeatable action that (actually not fantastically)
brings a precise misrelation of oneself to oneself/world to an end.
I also read him as saying that the possibility of that metamorphosis
can be posited only by one aware that the metamorphosis has actually
come into being, which leads to his discussions of direct/indirect
To apply this to another one of his terms: the Absurd. The Absurd is
an imaginary construction performed by one aware of the
metamorphosis, who, precisely by being aware of the metamorphosis,
imagines how one prior to the metamorphosis might relate to the
metamorphosis. The Absurd would then have a different meaning
depending upon whether one is aware of the metamorphosis that brings
the meaning of the Absurd into being.
>>>It would be my contention that SK may be read, in his entirety, asspeaking to that transition from the 1st power to the 2nd power. For
my part, I see that theme running through all of his works,
pseudonymous or not. In reading his two books, On My Work as an
Author, and The Point of View from my Work as an Author, I do not see
how one can conclude otherwise.<<<
Agreed. Here an item from Kierkegaard's private journals where I see
the idea again expressed.
"If freedom (in repetition as a religious movement) now discovers an
obstacle, the this must lie in freedom itself. Freedom no manifests
itself in man not in its perfection but as disturbance. This
disturbance, however, must be posited by freedom itself, for
otherwise there would be no freedom at all or the disturbance would
be a fate which freedom could could remove. The disturbance which is
supuplied by freedom itself is sin."
(Papers and Journals, Hannay, 1996 : 43-4 IV B 118:1)
Do you see Kierkegaard expressing consciousness of the idea of
second order consciousness in this quote, or do you think that
consciousness is missing? I match it with the quote at the top of
this post, the one where he says: "Philosophically, this is a
movement of reflection that is described backward and is first
understood when it is accomplished." This understanding is
interchangeable with freedom.
Well, this message probably deserves a proofreading, but the message
is already overdue and Mr. Sandman calls me to surrender my
thoughts. I apologize for any messes you come across.