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

Re: Clearing the ground

Expand Messages
  • borderealis
    WilBRO, Gratuitous remarks below. ;) ... said something we can start with. Let me give you my thinking on this.
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 14, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      WilBRO,

      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
      this.<<<

      >>>"If a thinker is developing a world-view which cannot, is
      essentially
      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-
      view
      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
      difference
      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,
      which
      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.

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