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

Re: Clearing the ground

Expand Messages
  • borderealis
    Hey Will, Long time no read. I just stumbled on this. Hey, I agree with you. Seems like the writer is responsible only for deciding whether or not he knows
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Will,

      Long time no read. I just stumbled on this. Hey, I agree with you.
      Seems like the writer is responsible only for deciding whether or not
      he knows whether or not the reader knows what he's writing about. I
      guess that means I've decided that I know that you know. Now, I only
      need to convince you that you know that I know that you know. See?

      My belly rumbles which means I'm getting hungry to feed the world
      with language. Properly prepared, of course, whether that be a 7-
      course meal, a tater-tot hot dish, a grab bag from the candy store,
      or some vintage wine.


      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
      > Hi Een, I have already chosen from your parts list of the quote and
      > penned a reply. I shall put it on hold for the nonce because I am
      > intrigued by the rest of your post, and how it leads up to your
      > comment, which I shall now comment upon. In response to you
      > concerning my writing style, I had written a long paragraph on your
      > paraphrasing of SK and what I see of the use you make of it, but
      > ultimately decided to put it on the shelf for another time.
      > Een: <I suggest that the introduction of terminology into a
      > communication should be purposeful and careful; that the purpose and
      > care involved in the language is inseparable from the purpose and
      > expressed through the communication. Purposeless, careless
      > communication is not communication at all, since it cannot have an
      > audience but only spectators.>
      > Well, isn't this what you had been leading up to in this post; the
      > responsibility of the writer to the reader? However, have you not
      > assumed that the responsibility for the reader's inability to
      > understand the writer rests solely with the writer? Is it not
      > that the reader simply does not understand what is being said
      > the reader is not in the position to understand? For instance, if
      > writer is expressing an insight into, say, a self-understanding that
      > the reader has not yet 'appropriated,' then no amount of clarity on
      > the part of the writer will get the message across. Even though it
      > seem, from the reader's perspective, that the problem lies in the
      > inability of the writer to explain the matter, could it not just as
      > easily be that the reader has not yet appropriated the category
      > necessary to grasp the distinction being made; especially if that
      > distinction is separated by an absolute disjunction?
      > I guess the question here could be one of why you seemingly do not
      > entertain that other possibility. If the opportunity arises down
      > line, I shall ask that question of you. willy
      > PS: Here is a quote borderealis laid on me many a moon ago that
      > with this matter:
      > "Finally, there is the popular fallacy. If often enough the meaning
      > an expression is simple and obvious, why should it not always be so?
      > Why should honest truth ever hide in the voluminous folds of a
      > lengthy, complicated, and difficult exposition? Perhaps we have done
      > something to meet this objection. Once one has understood, the
      > of an insight is simple and obvious even though it is expressed
      > poorly. Until one has understood, the content of an insight is as
      > hidden as the far side of the moon. Accordingly, one finds the
      > of expressions simple and obvious when the speaker or writer is
      > communicating what one understands already, and one finds their
      > meaning obscure and difficult when he is stating what one has still
      > learn. In the latter case no amount of pedagogic and linguistic
      > will eliminate the necessity of the effort to learn. For this reason
      > only the man who understands everything already is in a position to
      > demand that all meaning be simple and obvious to him." Bernard
      > Lonergan, S.J., Insight, p.558, Harper & Row 1958
    • borderealis
      WilBRO, Gratuitous remarks below. ;) ... said something we can start with. Let me give you my thinking on this.
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 14, 2004
      • 0 Attachment

        Gratuitous remarks below. ;)

        >>>Yo, Bordo, we are back to the question of communication. Neat. Een
        said something we can start with. Let me give you my thinking on

        >>>"If a thinker is developing a world-view which cannot, is
        not equipped to, include himself; then he is piling up confusion ahead
        of this understanding."<<<

        >>>Logically, if that statement is to make sense, there is a world-
        which is not equipped to include the one whose world-view it is, and
        there is one so equipped. If I have a world-view, and I can't imagine
        not having one if having one is the way we place ourselves in the
        world, how would I ascertain whether or not I was so equipped?
        Wouldn't I have to know that difference for me to know which, or even
        be able to begin to ascertain which? If I didn't know that difference,
        wouldn't I be in the situation of piling up confusion?<<<

        >>>Ok, if my logic holds on this, wouldn't there have to be a
        between knowing and knowing, just like the difference between the
        understanding and the understanding he began the part with?<<<

        It's been a while. Let's see if I can get my juices flowing here. I
        follow you, if you know what I mean. The difference between knowing
        and knowing, in fact, could be expressed as a difference between
        difference and difference, or even between expression and expression.
        The difference seems to apply everywhere. It would come down to a
        basic difference, in other words. One might call that difference the
        qualitative difference. Furthermore, one may even suggest that the
        difference between the qualitative difference and other, non-
        qualitative differences /is/ the qualitative differences. So the
        qualitative difference is the difference by which the qualitative
        difference is distinguished from non-qualitative differences. And by
        what knowing would that qualitative difference be known? Who is the
        one who would ascertain which knowing that is? By the knowing that is
        qualitatively different from knowing; by the self who is
        qualitatively different from self. "Know thyself?" A loaded question.
        Which self is being asked, the one who knows the self to be known, or
        the one who doesn't know the self to be known. Big question. About
        three or four stories from the ground, in fact.

        >>>Then, the important thing here is to understand the difference,
        says to me that the difference must be known, which goes back to the
        difference between knowing and knowing. The first knowing could be
        said to be the logical knowing, or the thought of knowing, and the
        second knowing could be said to be the appropriated knowing, or the
        existential knowing. And, to complete the circle here, wouldn't there
        be a difference between the understanding of that difference depending
        upon which understanding, the first or the second, comes to understand
        that statement?<<<

        Yes, a difference between the individual who talks about the
        individual and the individual who talks about the individual. To the
        individual on the left side, the right side looks like a reiteration
        of the left side. "Why pretend that saying the same thing twice
        introduces a difference?" To the individual on right side, the left
        side looks like it doesn't see the right side; that is, it doesn't
        see the difference between the left side and the right side. The
        difference is between seeing the difference and not seeing the
        difference. If this is a good interpretation of SK, you'd almost get
        the impression that SK had only a single idea of a single difference,
        recollected and repeated throughout his authorship. Did he ever say
        anything about such an idea?

        >>>What that tells me is that the difference between the first two
        categories of understanding will show up as a difference regardless of
        which view the difference is seen from, but that the difference
        between those two differences is what shows up as the qualitative
        difference, and that only one view can be cognizant of that
        difference. That is the second power component, and opaque to the
        first power.<<<

        Right on.

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