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

Re: Truth is Subjectivity

Expand Messages
  • borderealis
    Will, I ve been meaning to reply to your fascinating post for a while but just haven t gotten around to it. I hope its viability hasn t decayed as a result of
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 12, 2004

      I've been meaning to reply to your fascinating post for a while but
      just haven't gotten around to it. I hope its viability hasn't
      decayed as a result of my delay. :)

      >>>The difficulty in communication resides the meaning of
      subjectivity. If there is a second subjectivity incommensurable with
      the first subjectivity, as SK asserts, then a direct communication,
      where subjectivity is the subject of the communication, is bound to
      fail, regardless of where the communicants are located in this
      matter, because the meaning of subjectivity in respect to the
      difference between the two powers of subjectivity is not addressed.
      This means that a communicant who does not know the difference
      cannot speak indirectly, and that indirect communication is, in
      effect, speaking to that difference. That difference is something
      only one who has been "appropriated" by that the second power of
      subjectivity can speak to.<<<

      I'll suppose that I can trace what you say here. What do you say
      about the second subjectivity (which I'll call S-2) is that it can
      express itself as a difference between:

      1. S-2 as expressing the difference between S-2 and S-1
      2. S-2 as expressed within the difference between S-2 and S-1

      In other words, for S-2 being itself and finding itself mean the
      same thing. If it wasn't being itself it wouldn't be finding itself,
      and if it wasn't finding itself it wouldn't be being itself - and it
      finds itself in knowing that. (That's repetition repeated. To call
      it unduly complex is to mistake S-2 as expressed for S-2 as
      expressing. That observation serves to simplify things no matter how
      ridiculous the language.) Would you say that this lines up with your
      analysis of Either/Or (aut/aut) - a difference between choosing
      rightly and choosing wrongly where one must choose rightly before
      seeing the difference between choosing rightly and choosing wrongly?

      Do you think S-2 communication will always have to distinguish
      activity from result - itself from itself? Kind of the via negativa
      you mentioned, right? It's almost as if the ethical personality
      would have no telos outside itself - meaning the ethical personality
      chooses to be the ethical personality for the sake of making that
      choice - it's not trying to save the world or anything, although it
      might appear to have that effect. It reminds me of something from a
      sermon of Augustine's that I have read, with a Kierkegaardian twist,
      perhaps missed by Augustine, that I will expose after the quote.

      "Let us observe what happens when we first seek to build up our
      hearts. When I think about what I am going to say, the word or
      message is already in my heart. When I want to speak to you, I look
      for a way to share with your heart what is already in mine. In my
      search for a way to let this message reach you, so that the word
      already in my heart may find place also in yours, I use my voice to
      speak to you. The sound of my voice brings the meaning of the word
      to you and then passes away. The word which the sound has brought to
      you is now in your heart, and yet is still also in mine. When the
      word has been conveyed to you, does not the sound seem to say: The
      word ought to grow and I should diminish? The sound of the voice has
      made itself heard in the service of the word, and has gone away, as
      though it were saying: My joy is complete. Let us hold onto the
      word; we must not lose the word conceived inwardly in our hearts."

      The light that I surmise you would say Kierkegaard would shine on
      this Augustinian gem is this: the word in the heart (as opposed to
      the word of the heart) does not arise from the sound of the voice.
      The word of the heart forms the sound of the voice but the sound of
      the voice cannot form the word of the heart, note because of
      temporal remoteness, as Augustine seems to suggest, but simply
      because what is being formed is the relation between the activity of
      forming as forming and the activity of forming as formed. If the
      word of the heart is the S-2 subjectivity/immediacy, it is a
      confusion to apply S-1 communication, as if the S-2 communication
      had become inattentive to the fact that what is to be communicated,
      namely, the S-2 subjectivity, is precisely attentiveness to that
      subjectivity by that subjectivity. Augustine seems to slip into this
      confusion when he suggests we hold onto the word - perhaps he think
      it can be lost in the noise as a result of thinking it can be
      generated by the noise. He forgets to hold the absolute telos as the
      absolute starting point and casts it as the result of sound. The
      sound, which could be defined as whatever is not that which
      expresses itself in the sound, does not diminish in time, but in
      (with) time.

      Well, let me know what you think.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.