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

Re: Ex-Sponge

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    ... Hey Rickle, is this what you were getting at? If I posit a way of interpreting SK that opposes absolutely another way of interpreting him, and restrict the
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "hakoohaj" <hakoohaj@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear All,
      >
      > Let me contribute to this sponge bath. From my perch high above the
      > bright line willyb finds himself on one side of I can see that the
      > bright line is only an ugly ditch that negates everything thrown into
      > it. Anyone on the other than willyb's side of that ditch sees him
      > trying to take their view of Kierkegaard from them and replacing it
      > with nonsense. Is it any wonder that willyb is as adored as he is? :)
      >
      > I don't have a view of Kierkegaard so I can see both sides of the ugly
      > ditch.
      >
      > Cheers,
      > Rick
      >

      Hey Rickle, is this what you were getting at? If I posit a way of
      interpreting SK that opposes absolutely another way of interpreting
      him, and restrict the ways of reading him to those two incommensurable
      ways, then anyone who does not understand what I am saying when I
      interpret SK is automatically placed on the other side of that bright
      line. All that other needs to know is that they do not understand what
      I am saying and that not only places them on the other side of the
      line but places them in the position of not knowing something because
      of an implied lack of understanding.

      Well, that seems to be the case of it, but there is not much I can do
      about that and still continue speaking up for my view. If I were one
      of the crowd, I could argue against another of the crowd and not
      engage the scent of the esoteric. Unfortunately, when I came upon SK
      for the first time, I found him speaking a language I could
      understand. That is not to say that it is not my hearing that is at
      fault here and that what I hear as fact is really only an artifact of
      his way of speaking. ----willy
    • nnn88388
      ... the ... the ... into ... it ... is? :) ... the ugly ... incommensurable ... bright ... what ... because ... do ... one ... SK ... of ... Will, what can I
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 9, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "hakoohaj" <hakoohaj@>
        wrote:
        > >
        > > Dear All,
        > >
        > > Let me contribute to this sponge bath. From my perch high above
        the
        > > bright line willyb finds himself on one side of I can see that
        the
        > > bright line is only an ugly ditch that negates everything thrown
        into
        > > it. Anyone on the other than willyb's side of that ditch sees him
        > > trying to take their view of Kierkegaard from them and replacing
        it
        > > with nonsense. Is it any wonder that willyb is as adored as he
        is? :)
        > >
        > > I don't have a view of Kierkegaard so I can see both sides of
        the ugly
        > > ditch.
        > >
        > > Cheers,
        > > Rick
        > >
        >
        > Hey Rickle, is this what you were getting at? If I posit a way of
        > interpreting SK that opposes absolutely another way of interpreting
        > him, and restrict the ways of reading him to those two
        incommensurable
        > ways, then anyone who does not understand what I am saying when I
        > interpret SK is automatically placed on the other side of that
        bright
        > line. All that other needs to know is that they do not understand
        what
        > I am saying and that not only places them on the other side of the
        > line but places them in the position of not knowing something
        because
        > of an implied lack of understanding.
        >
        > Well, that seems to be the case of it, but there is not much I can
        do
        > about that and still continue speaking up for my view. If I were
        one
        > of the crowd, I could argue against another of the crowd and not
        > engage the scent of the esoteric. Unfortunately, when I came upon
        SK
        > for the first time, I found him speaking a language I could
        > understand. That is not to say that it is not my hearing that is at
        > fault here and that what I hear as fact is really only an artifact
        of
        > his way of speaking. ----willy
        >
        Will, what can I say?
        Today while at work I started to write something that would explain
        my thoughts on all of this stuff. After a while it got muddled up.
        Here is the gist of it. The religious trip, there and back, came
        out pretty clear; mostly in schematic form with single words for
        movements, modes and stops, greek and english. BTW, because I'm
        familiar with it, it's not much different than describing my dog
        Haus. I'm having trouble with the
        philosophical/dialectical/psychological rendering of the diagram
        though. Just today I borrowed Works of Love from the U and looking
        at the table of contents I see that my key thought is somewhere in
        there. That key thought is 'Duty' as you guys have mentioned. On the
        way up it's a command, "Thou Shalt", on the way back it's 'a Debt to
        Love', a debt that has to be repaid the same way it was incurred, by
        Love. But here's the kicker: the debt of love can only be repaid to
        thy neighbor and to thyself. And to do this you have to find
        yourself and your neighbor. But maybe that happens simultaneously
        with the incursion of the debt? Wouldn't that be hilarious?
        Speaking of up and down, I hope you all see that SK, either on his
        own or through his pseudos, always goes up describing life
        thoroughly but limiting himself to the stage he is at, and then
        descending and describing the same life with new-gained insight
        (usually in parts one and two of a book). In his pseudos he may
        cover the up trip in one book and the return trip in another. So
        when he writes one book as 'Climacus', he's climbing. When he writes
        another as 'Anti-Climacus', he's descending.
        Anyway, look up the word obligation and see the various meanings. In
        greek there are clearly two different words for duty as a command, a
        legal/moral obligation, and duty as a debt.
        Perhaps you more articulate people can lay out the scheme from a non-
        religious perspective or a religious perspective that covers the
        concepts of innocence, sin, guilt, duty, repentance, faith, mercy,
        forgiveness, love, debt, innocence.
        p.s. please don't forget your self and its existence because without
        that, neither the religious nor the non-religious can understand or
        explain anything about this stuff.

        NickL
      • Will Brown
        ... Nickle, you really must do this other side of the mountain business more often. Thanks for another view of this mess. When you get further into WL, give us
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "nnn88388" <nnn88388@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "hakoohaj" <hakoohaj@>
          > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Dear All,
          > > >
          > > > Let me contribute to this sponge bath. From my perch high above
          > the
          > > > bright line willyb finds himself on one side of I can see that
          > the
          > > > bright line is only an ugly ditch that negates everything thrown
          > into
          > > > it. Anyone on the other than willyb's side of that ditch sees him
          > > > trying to take their view of Kierkegaard from them and replacing
          > it
          > > > with nonsense. Is it any wonder that willyb is as adored as he
          > is? :)
          > > >
          > > > I don't have a view of Kierkegaard so I can see both sides of
          > the ugly
          > > > ditch.
          > > >
          > > > Cheers,
          > > > Rick
          > > >
          > >
          > > Hey Rickle, is this what you were getting at? If I posit a way of
          > > interpreting SK that opposes absolutely another way of interpreting
          > > him, and restrict the ways of reading him to those two
          > incommensurable
          > > ways, then anyone who does not understand what I am saying when I
          > > interpret SK is automatically placed on the other side of that
          > bright
          > > line. All that other needs to know is that they do not understand
          > what
          > > I am saying and that not only places them on the other side of the
          > > line but places them in the position of not knowing something
          > because
          > > of an implied lack of understanding.
          > >
          > > Well, that seems to be the case of it, but there is not much I can
          > do
          > > about that and still continue speaking up for my view. If I were
          > one
          > > of the crowd, I could argue against another of the crowd and not
          > > engage the scent of the esoteric. Unfortunately, when I came upon
          > SK
          > > for the first time, I found him speaking a language I could
          > > understand. That is not to say that it is not my hearing that is at
          > > fault here and that what I hear as fact is really only an artifact
          > of
          > > his way of speaking. ----willy
          > >
          > Will, what can I say?
          > Today while at work I started to write something that would explain
          > my thoughts on all of this stuff. After a while it got muddled up.
          > Here is the gist of it. The religious trip, there and back, came
          > out pretty clear; mostly in schematic form with single words for
          > movements, modes and stops, greek and english. BTW, because I'm
          > familiar with it, it's not much different than describing my dog
          > Haus. I'm having trouble with the
          > philosophical/dialectical/psychological rendering of the diagram
          > though. Just today I borrowed Works of Love from the U and looking
          > at the table of contents I see that my key thought is somewhere in
          > there. That key thought is 'Duty' as you guys have mentioned. On the
          > way up it's a command, "Thou Shalt", on the way back it's 'a Debt to
          > Love', a debt that has to be repaid the same way it was incurred, by
          > Love. But here's the kicker: the debt of love can only be repaid to
          > thy neighbor and to thyself. And to do this you have to find
          > yourself and your neighbor. But maybe that happens simultaneously
          > with the incursion of the debt? Wouldn't that be hilarious?
          > Speaking of up and down, I hope you all see that SK, either on his
          > own or through his pseudos, always goes up describing life
          > thoroughly but limiting himself to the stage he is at, and then
          > descending and describing the same life with new-gained insight
          > (usually in parts one and two of a book). In his pseudos he may
          > cover the up trip in one book and the return trip in another. So
          > when he writes one book as 'Climacus', he's climbing. When he writes
          > another as 'Anti-Climacus', he's descending.
          > Anyway, look up the word obligation and see the various meanings. In
          > greek there are clearly two different words for duty as a command, a
          > legal/moral obligation, and duty as a debt.
          > Perhaps you more articulate people can lay out the scheme from a non-
          > religious perspective or a religious perspective that covers the
          > concepts of innocence, sin, guilt, duty, repentance, faith, mercy,
          > forgiveness, love, debt, innocence.
          > p.s. please don't forget your self and its existence because without
          > that, neither the religious nor the non-religious can understand or
          > explain anything about this stuff.
          >
          > NickL
          >

          Nickle, you really must do this other side of the mountain business
          more often. Thanks for another view of this mess. When you get further
          into WL, give us an update. I am especially curious about how see this
          'transferred language' business that begins Part 2. ----willy
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.