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

The Existential Orientation

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    In response to [3301] JR, what we have, or what I see that we have, is more bright line difficulty in communication. I created a form, a dynamic, if you will,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 11, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In response to [3301]

      JR, what we have, or what I see that we have, is more bright line
      difficulty in communication. I created a form, a dynamic, if you will,
      that represented to me the esthetic seeker plying its cycle of seek.
      This form was cobbled together as representing the view of the
      disjunctionista, where the cycle of seek was limited solely to the
      esthetic sphere of existence; there being then no way to introduce the
      ethical into it since, from the disjunctionista view of the spheres,
      that cycle must not only come to an end, but the one responsible for
      its existence must also come to an end.

      Let me repeat that. From the disjunctionista side of the bright line,
      the one who plies the circle of seek occupies the circle of seek,
      being the identity whose existence is counted in the finding and
      keeping of what it wants to be. It is the sense of self that FN
      worships in his will to power, the self-made superman who has become
      what he has dreamed of becoming. The transition to the ethical sphere
      signifies the ending of both the circle of seek and its occupant. When
      that occupant is negated in the transition, its past and future must
      collapse with it; what remains is the ethical self oriented to the
      universal and, in occupying the present, is present to its occupation,
      as it were.

      = = == === =====

      > Will -- doesn't that sound like a process similar to K describes?
      Doesn't the person in the ethical take responsibility for his
      culturally conditioned self (looking back into the past), then
      perceive the requirements of the ethical and makes those requirements
      the self he wants to become in the future? Jim R <

      When you asked the above, I then replied as follows:

      > I am not sure what /that/ you are referring to that sounds "like a
      process similar to [what] K describes." The reason for my hesitation
      is that I don't see what you have said in your description as
      resembling anything I would agree with. <

      What I saw in your statement was another example of the difference in
      our respective views in this matter of SK. My question had the intent
      of opening up our difference again to the care of a dialogue. I did
      that because there is something you said in your back and forth with
      Rick that I think we need to explored.

      [3286] JR: > Now I would say the person making the leap from the
      asthetic to the ethical /creates an aboslute disjunction between the
      two -in his existential orientation-. In other words, rather than
      centering his consciousness on sensation, he is now oriented toward
      the universal. That is the absolute disjunction. However, the ethical
      person still lives a sensory existence. He simply relates himself
      differently to it now that he has made the leap. The aesthetic, in
      this sense, has been caught up into the ethical. <

      You added a dimension in which the absolute disjunction held sway: the
      existential orientation. Rick questioned you about it (if he hadn't, I
      would have). Your reply follows.
      - - -- --- -----
      [3287] RM; > I can read what you have said as meeting my definition of
      the absolute disjunction. The reference to the 'existential
      orientation' as where the absolute disjunction applies or takes place
      makes what you say what willyb says if you mean by that the
      self-relation. I think he calls that relation the self to self
      relation and that is where the change takes place. He would probably
      qualify that by saying that the change defines the 'existential
      orientation'.

      > When I read Kierkegaard I read him as always talking about that
      existential orientation only. Nothing more and nothing less. I think
      that catches both the spirit of Kierkegaard and the spirit of
      Kierkegaard. That's how I see the absolute disjunction working. It
      might not be but I can read him making the same sense throughout if I
      look at him that way. I don't know about this appropriation business
      but it makes sense to me logically if his words are confined to your
      existential orientation. <
      - - -- --- -----
      [3288] JR: > Yes, I agree that what K was all about was "existential
      orientation," and yes, I would say the self to self relation is the
      beginning of that. K goes beyond the self to self relation in SUD
      (well, A-C does), and says that the self to self relation itself is
      sustained by, or grounded in, another; i.e., God. The "self" isn't
      complete, according to K, until it is consciously related to God,
      because God is the basis of the self. Jim R <
      - - -- --- -----
      I guess my question is this: how can you entertain the notion of an
      'existential orientation' being where SK begins, ascribing the
      presence of an absolute disjunction between the esthetic and ethical
      spheres, and still describe the ethical in esthetic terms? That is
      what I see you doing. Have you caught the drift of my question? If
      not, I will try different words. ----willy
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.