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

Re: Hannay & Kierkega

Expand Messages
  • nnn88388
    ... Unless zin is zpirit. For az sed in ze proverbe in Wino Weritas... , all zis blessid béveredge bringz force iz certainely zpiritefoolness... ...
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Mederic Laitier
      <hidepark21@...> wrote:
      >
      > Tuh-tuh,
      >
      > Zer' iz note a zingel trace of zinfoolnesse in zis béveredge.
      Unless zin is zpirit. For az sed in ze proverbe 'in Wino
      Weritas...', all zis blessid béveredge bringz force iz certainely
      zpiritefoolness...
      >
      > And it iz bisailledeusse shoorely zinfulnesse to see zinfulnesse
      éverywhere!
      >
      > ZZiss is Zee true sagesse française... I say.
      >
      > Sheese,
      > MLPPLM
      >
      >
      >
      Meddy,
      I work for a very stiff necked company that would find me guilty of
      ethnical harrassment should they hear me speak the above 'French
      truth'! You cut it out now!
      NALLAN
    • nnn88388
      ... Unless zin is zpirit. For az sed in ze proverbe in Wino Weritas... , all zis blessid béveredge bringz force iz certainely zpiritefoolness... ...
      Message 2 of 20 , Sep 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Mederic Laitier
        <hidepark21@...> wrote:
        >
        > Tuh-tuh,
        >
        > Zer' iz note a zingel trace of zinfoolnesse in zis béveredge.
        Unless zin is zpirit. For az sed in ze proverbe 'in Wino
        Weritas...', all zis blessid béveredge bringz force iz certainely
        zpiritefoolness...
        >
        > And it iz bisailledeusse shoorely zinfulnesse to see zinfulnesse
        éverywhere!
        >
        > ZZiss is Zee true sagesse française... I say.
        >
        > Sheese,
        > MLPPLM
        >
        >

        BTW, it was not an apple or a pear or a grape of any kind (zinfandel
        or other); it was /a/ pomegranate! It says so in the 'Book'.
        nnn


        >
        > Don Anderson <don@...> wrote:
        Mederic,
        > Surley you don't mean that. You French know of the Zinfulness of
        Zinfandel.
        > Red Grape Don
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Mederic
        Laitier
        > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:33 AM
        > To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: RE: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Hannay & Kierkega
        >
        > Dear Don,
        >
        > At your age you should know -this- by now! What a silly question!
        Really!
        > Everybody -knows- the fruit was... a pear.
        >
        > A fat bottom pear! Lucious and delicious!
        >
        > Appled Medyy...
        > Oh, sorry I meant appealed Meedy...
        > Oh, sorry again, I really meant appalled Meddy
        >
        > Don Anderson <don@...> wrote: JimR,
        > You say that in the case of Adam and Eve its a bad thing. What
        about us,
        > is
        > it a bad thing for us? Is the forbidden fruit actual fruit or
        is it a
        > symbol
        > for something else that is forbidden? Did they really
        understand anything?
        > What effect does living in time have on all this? Perhaps these
        are a form
        > of some of the questions Billybob was asking.
        > Red grape don
        >
        > PS: Are you presenting these ideas as your own or are they your
        > interpretation of what SK (or at least Haufniensis) is saying?
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of James
        Rovira
        > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:42 AM
        > To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Hannay & Kierkega
        >
        > In the case of Adam and Eve, it's a bad thing, I think. Here's
        how I see
        > the progression:
        >
        > The innocent/ignorant are unaware of their self and their own
        nature and
        > seek knowledge of themselves outside themselves. This seeking
        is a slight
        > anxiety.
        >
        > Naturally, they don't find it--you can't find out who you are in
        some form
        > of external pursuit.
        >
        > This not finding it increases anxiety.
        >
        > The fruit of the -knowledge- of good and evil appears very
        tempting--more
        > and more so--as the feeling of a lack of self knowledge
        increases.
        >
        > Furthermore, both the command not to eat the fruit and the threat
        of death
        > attached to disobedience intensifies disobedience, as A and E
        now try (but
        > can't) imagine what the world would be like in the case of
        disobedience,
        > and
        > try (but can't) imagine what death is. Ignorance is
        intensified, so
        > anxiety
        > is intensified.
        >
        > What A and E do know and understand, however, is that the fruit
        promises
        > knowledge, and they do know and understand how to eat a fruit,
        of
        > course--so
        > in their intense anxiety over their ignorance, they grab on to
        something
        > finite (the forbidden fruit) for alleviation of their anxiety.
        They sin.
        >
        > Jim R
        >
        > On 9/28/06, Don Anderson <don@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > JimR,
        > > What Do you mean by "knowledge in the form of finitude?" Is
        grasping
        > > knowledge in the form of finitude a good or a bad thing?
        > > Cab. Don
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Mederic Laitier
        d pends! What company? If I have share in it why not retract, otherwise, don t care... This was corporate wisdom... nnn88388 wrote:
        Message 3 of 20 , Sep 28, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          d'pends!

          What company? If I have share in it why not retract, otherwise, don't care...

          This was corporate wisdom...

          nnn88388 <nnn88388@...> wrote: --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Mederic Laitier
          <hidepark21@...> wrote:
          >
          > Tuh-tuh,
          >
          > Zer' iz note a zingel trace of zinfoolnesse in zis béveredge.
          Unless zin is zpirit. For az sed in ze proverbe 'in Wino
          Weritas...', all zis blessid béveredge bringz force iz certainely
          zpiritefoolness...
          >
          > And it iz bisailledeusse shoorely zinfulnesse to see zinfulnesse
          éverywhere!
          >
          > ZZiss is Zee true sagesse française... I say.
          >
          > Sheese,
          > MLPPLM
          >
          >
          >
          Meddy,
          I work for a very stiff necked company that would find me guilty of
          ethnical harrassment should they hear me speak the above 'French
          truth'! You cut it out now!
          NALLAN






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mederic Laitier
          Nope. Pear, I maintain Pear. nnn88388 wrote: --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Mederic Laitier ...
          Message 4 of 20 , Sep 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Nope.

            Pear, I maintain Pear.

            nnn88388 <nnn88388@...> wrote: --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Mederic Laitier
            <hidepark21@...> wrote:
            >
            > Tuh-tuh,
            >
            > Zer' iz note a zingel trace of zinfoolnesse in zis béveredge.
            Unless zin is zpirit. For az sed in ze proverbe 'in Wino
            Weritas...', all zis blessid béveredge bringz force iz certainely
            zpiritefoolness...
            >
            > And it iz bisailledeusse shoorely zinfulnesse to see zinfulnesse
            éverywhere!
            >
            > ZZiss is Zee true sagesse française... I say.
            >
            > Sheese,
            > MLPPLM
            >
            >

            BTW, it was not an apple or a pear or a grape of any kind (zinfandel
            or other); it was /a/ pomegranate! It says so in the 'Book'.
            nnn

            >
            > Don Anderson <don@...> wrote:
            Mederic,
            > Surley you don't mean that. You French know of the Zinfulness of
            Zinfandel.
            > Red Grape Don
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
            > [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Mederic
            Laitier
            > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:33 AM
            > To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: RE: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Hannay & Kierkega
            >
            > Dear Don,
            >
            > At your age you should know -this- by now! What a silly question!
            Really!
            > Everybody -knows- the fruit was... a pear.
            >
            > A fat bottom pear! Lucious and delicious!
            >
            > Appled Medyy...
            > Oh, sorry I meant appealed Meedy...
            > Oh, sorry again, I really meant appalled Meddy
            >
            > Don Anderson <don@...> wrote: JimR,
            > You say that in the case of Adam and Eve its a bad thing. What
            about us,
            > is
            > it a bad thing for us? Is the forbidden fruit actual fruit or
            is it a
            > symbol
            > for something else that is forbidden? Did they really
            understand anything?
            > What effect does living in time have on all this? Perhaps these
            are a form
            > of some of the questions Billybob was asking.
            > Red grape don
            >
            > PS: Are you presenting these ideas as your own or are they your
            > interpretation of what SK (or at least Haufniensis) is saying?
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
            > [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of James
            Rovira
            > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:42 AM
            > To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Hannay & Kierkega
            >
            > In the case of Adam and Eve, it's a bad thing, I think. Here's
            how I see
            > the progression:
            >
            > The innocent/ignorant are unaware of their self and their own
            nature and
            > seek knowledge of themselves outside themselves. This seeking
            is a slight
            > anxiety.
            >
            > Naturally, they don't find it--you can't find out who you are in
            some form
            > of external pursuit.
            >
            > This not finding it increases anxiety.
            >
            > The fruit of the -knowledge- of good and evil appears very
            tempting--more
            > and more so--as the feeling of a lack of self knowledge
            increases.
            >
            > Furthermore, both the command not to eat the fruit and the threat
            of death
            > attached to disobedience intensifies disobedience, as A and E
            now try (but
            > can't) imagine what the world would be like in the case of
            disobedience,
            > and
            > try (but can't) imagine what death is. Ignorance is
            intensified, so
            > anxiety
            > is intensified.
            >
            > What A and E do know and understand, however, is that the fruit
            promises
            > knowledge, and they do know and understand how to eat a fruit,
            of
            > course--so
            > in their intense anxiety over their ignorance, they grab on to
            something
            > finite (the forbidden fruit) for alleviation of their anxiety.
            They sin.
            >
            > Jim R
            >
            > On 9/28/06, Don Anderson <don@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > JimR,
            > > What Do you mean by "knowledge in the form of finitude?" Is
            grasping
            > > knowledge in the form of finitude a good or a bad thing?
            > > Cab. Don
            > >
            > >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • nnn88388
            ... O.K. I agree it was a pear. I think I said that some time before this. Just the sound of it is right. So (let me get that right), that s /a/ pair of votes
            Message 5 of 20 , Sep 28, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Mederic Laitier
              <hidepark21@...> wrote:
              >
              > Nope.
              >
              > Pear, I maintain Pear.
              >

              O.K. I agree it was a pear. I think I said that some time before
              this. Just the sound of it is right. So (let me get that right),
              that's /a/ pair of votes for /the/ pear!
              n

              > nnn88388 <nnn88388@...> wrote: ---
              In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Mederic Laitier
              > <hidepark21@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Tuh-tuh,
              > >
              > > Zer' iz note a zingel trace of zinfoolnesse in zis béveredge.
              > Unless zin is zpirit. For az sed in ze proverbe 'in Wino
              > Weritas...', all zis blessid béveredge bringz force iz
              certainely
              > zpiritefoolness...
              > >
              > > And it iz bisailledeusse shoorely zinfulnesse to see
              zinfulnesse
              > éverywhere!
              > >
              > > ZZiss is Zee true sagesse française... I say.
              > >
              > > Sheese,
              > > MLPPLM
              > >
              > >
              >
              > BTW, it was not an apple or a pear or a grape of any kind
              (zinfandel
              > or other); it was /a/ pomegranate! It says so in the 'Book'.
              > nnn
              >
              > >
              > > Don Anderson <don@> wrote:
              > Mederic,
              > > Surley you don't mean that. You French know of the Zinfulness
              of
              > Zinfandel.
              > > Red Grape Don
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
              > > [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Mederic
              > Laitier
              > > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:33 AM
              > > To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: RE: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Hannay & Kierkega
              > >
              > > Dear Don,
              > >
              > > At your age you should know -this- by now! What a silly
              question!
              > Really!
              > > Everybody -knows- the fruit was... a pear.
              > >
              > > A fat bottom pear! Lucious and delicious!
              > >
              > > Appled Medyy...
              > > Oh, sorry I meant appealed Meedy...
              > > Oh, sorry again, I really meant appalled Meddy
              > >
              > > Don Anderson <don@> wrote: JimR,
              > > You say that in the case of Adam and Eve its a bad thing.
              What
              > about us,
              > > is
              > > it a bad thing for us? Is the forbidden fruit actual fruit
              or
              > is it a
              > > symbol
              > > for something else that is forbidden? Did they really
              > understand anything?
              > > What effect does living in time have on all this? Perhaps
              these
              > are a form
              > > of some of the questions Billybob was asking.
              > > Red grape don
              > >
              > > PS: Are you presenting these ideas as your own or are they your
              > > interpretation of what SK (or at least Haufniensis) is
              saying?
              > >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
              > > [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of James
              > Rovira
              > > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:42 AM
              > > To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Hannay & Kierkega
              > >
              > > In the case of Adam and Eve, it's a bad thing, I think. Here's
              > how I see
              > > the progression:
              > >
              > > The innocent/ignorant are unaware of their self and their own
              > nature and
              > > seek knowledge of themselves outside themselves. This
              seeking
              > is a slight
              > > anxiety.
              > >
              > > Naturally, they don't find it--you can't find out who you are
              in
              > some form
              > > of external pursuit.
              > >
              > > This not finding it increases anxiety.
              > >
              > > The fruit of the -knowledge- of good and evil appears very
              > tempting--more
              > > and more so--as the feeling of a lack of self knowledge
              > increases.
              > >
              > > Furthermore, both the command not to eat the fruit and the
              threat
              > of death
              > > attached to disobedience intensifies disobedience, as A and
              E
              > now try (but
              > > can't) imagine what the world would be like in the case of
              > disobedience,
              > > and
              > > try (but can't) imagine what death is. Ignorance is
              > intensified, so
              > > anxiety
              > > is intensified.
              > >
              > > What A and E do know and understand, however, is that the
              fruit
              > promises
              > > knowledge, and they do know and understand how to eat a
              fruit,
              > of
              > > course--so
              > > in their intense anxiety over their ignorance, they grab on
              to
              > something
              > > finite (the forbidden fruit) for alleviation of their
              anxiety.
              > They sin.
              > >
              > > Jim R
              > >
              > > On 9/28/06, Don Anderson <don@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > JimR,
              > > > What Do you mean by "knowledge in the form of finitude?"
              Is
              > grasping
              > > > knowledge in the form of finitude a good or a bad thing?
              > > > Cab. Don
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Don Anderson
              JimR, Please refer to your post 3875. Also posts 3925 and the one below. I find several problems with these scenarios although they are quite creative. It
              Message 6 of 20 , Sep 29, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                JimR,

                Please refer to your post 3875. Also posts 3925 and the one below.



                I find several problems with these scenarios although they are quite
                creative. It seems to me that there were two issues that Haufniensis (Hef)
                [and presumably SK] want to deal with about original and hereditary sin.
                First he wants to keep SK from being placed outside the human race by making
                him some kind of fantastical something. The second one asks what the role of
                knowledge is both for sin and for salvation. These are by no means
                exhaustive of the issues.



                The second of these is the one I want to focus on here because I see in what
                you say a partial clarity but there seem to be real confusions as well in
                getting what SK is saying. I find this confusion when you are discussing the
                story of the fall and you refer to Adams grasping for knowledge as "grasping
                knowledge in the form of finitude." This is fine for that is what happens
                when we seek to overcome the problem of nothing; no-thing. But implied in
                this phrase is that there is knowledge that we can grasp in the form of
                infinitude and therein is the problem. Perhaps I am wrong but in any case I
                present the following for your consideration and comment.



                Haufniensis (Hef) says anxiety is caused by nothing - no-thing. Not
                knowledge, not desire not even desire for the fruit, not will - no-thing,
                nothing. Innocence is ignorance, but not just any old ignorance; it is
                ignorance of the self. But according to Hef there is yet no self and even
                when the self is posited it is not what it will be in the future, it is
                always already becoming and will continue to become a self for a lifetime.
                The ignorance of innocence can be said to be the ignorance both of the self
                and of the future - ignorance of the future self. This is the crux of the
                problem as Hef sees it and is the source of subjective anxiety - the future.



                At this point the future is nothing but possibility and freedom within
                certain limits of necessity (finitude). Humans are free to choose from all
                the possible possibilities. So in my freedom I must choose what possibility
                I will make concrete in my life within the limits of my finitude. Sartre in
                commenting on this point in CA said, "I await myself in the future." If we
                imagine ourselves out there in our futures we can understand this. But when
                we think of ourselves out there we must not think of ourselves as what we
                are now. We will be changed.



                We live amidst the existential flux and we change because we must. We don't
                have a choice. The choices we have made and will make today will not survive
                into the future and new choices will need to be made. But we don't know and
                can't know how we will be changed until we are there and even at that, the
                moment will be fleeting as the flux continues and the need for more
                decisions present themselves again and again "repetitiously This is the
                ignorance in question. ". Life is what happens after we've made other plans.
                It's not entirely in our control.



                Subjective anxiety is, to put it simply, wanting to know the future, wanting
                to know that which only God knows, that which is only known from outside of
                existence, knowledge that is beyond the reach of mortals, in short it is
                wanting to be God. So because of nothing, non-knowledge, what we can't know
                in a lifetime, we rebel against the eternal, against the work of the
                creator, against the way of creation, and we Sin.



                So in this life no form of knowledge is the answer whether it is finite
                knowledge or infinite knowledge; infinite knowledge is beyond our grasp in
                that it is always deferred, so knowledge is not the answer and both finite
                knowledge or infinite knowledge is not something to be grasped. The answer
                is faith that God knows and he will provide. This is my interpretation of
                SK's interpretation.



                Grape-seed Don

                -----Original Message-----
                From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
                [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of James Rovira
                Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:11 PM
                To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Hannay & Kierkega


                Don--yes, what I wrote in my previous post is my interpretation of what
                Haufniensis is saying. So is the next paragraph:

                Of course we don't eat a literal fruit like A and E did, but we grasp on
                to
                other finite things to gain knowledge of ourselves, as a sort of
                substittute
                knowledge of self--jobs, relationships, money, fame, etc. Pretty much any
                external thing that people commonly define themselves by. It's a bad
                thing. It's sin. We don't recognize it as sin until much later.

                Now back to my own opinion: it's not totally clear to me if Haufniensis
                thinks it's inevitable that we all fall in to sin or not. I think, for our
                actions to be free, he has to at least admit, theoretically, that we can
                remain innocent. But I think he believes the fact is that none of us ever
                do.

                Jim R

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Will Brown
                JR, I only interject a point here because I see the opportunity to more closely define/describe what I see as the bright line difference between us. ... a
                Message 7 of 20 , Sep 29, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  JR, I only interject a point here because I see the opportunity to
                  more closely define/describe what I see as the bright line difference
                  between us.

                  > I would say it is incorrect to say there is no self. There is always
                  a self. In innocence, there is no self that has knowledge of
                  itself--so from the perspective of the self in innocence, there is no
                  self, but the self that does exist and doesn't know it feels anxious
                  about this lack of knowledge -- not knowing it is its own ignorance
                  that it's anxious about, but certainly feeling it. Of course, if it
                  wasn't already a self it wouldn't feel anxious.

                  The bright line appears here. The self that SK is talking about, the
                  one that enters the process in the aesthetic and exits it in R-B, is
                  the one that makes its appearance in the leap out of innocence; it is
                  /this/ self that is the universe of discourse in things
                  Kierkegaardian. To say again, I say that the self SK is going on about
                  is the self that makes its appearance in the leap out of innocence,
                  the self that does not appear until it is engendered by the leap, and
                  that it is this conditionally confined self that turns out to be the
                  subjectivity that gets changed in the process of the spheres.

                  I say that it, this self, was conditionally confined to meet the
                  requirements of its demise in the transition from the aesthetic to the
                  ethical sphere, and that what SK was doing in CA was defining how it
                  could have come into being to dissolve as it had in the transition.
                  ----willy
                • Don Anderson
                  JimR, ... self. In innocence, there is no self that has knowledge of itself--so from the perspective of the self in innocence, there is no self, but the self
                  Message 8 of 20 , Sep 30, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    JimR,

                    You said:
                    >>I would say it is incorrect to say there is no self. There is always a
                    self. In innocence, there is no self that has knowledge of itself--so from
                    the perspective of the self in innocence, there is no self, but the self
                    that does exist and doesn't know it feels anxious about this lack of
                    knowledge -- not knowing it is its own ignorance that it's anxious about,
                    but certainly feeling it. Of course, if it wasn't already a self it
                    wouldn't feel anxious.<<

                    My question is of course that if there is always a self how do you
                    interprete the following quote, particularly those sentences I have
                    highlighted? It appears to me that Hef says that in innocence the spirit is
                    not actual and so there is no synthesis as of yet nor is there man nor is
                    there even animal. In fact the spirit is still in the form that might be
                    called possibility or floating or something of the sort. It is spirit as
                    such. I think Hef (and SK?) sees this as, what shall I say, something like
                    The Incarnation. The dreaming spirit is a "disembodied" spirit, a floating
                    spirit. It is spirit that is not yet a synthesis with the sensuous, the
                    flesh. It is a soul that has not yet found flesh in which to live. In the
                    dreaming state, the person is not yet, the self is not yet because the
                    synthesis is not yet.

                    At this point I would point out that I believe Hef is waxing quite poetical
                    in trying to explain the unexplainable but he clearly is saying that in
                    innocence the synthesis is not yet in existance and so the person is not
                    yet. All of the parts so to speak, the body, the soul (psyche) and the
                    spirit are all kind of floating out there each in its seperate way just
                    waiting to be brought together. How are they brought together according to
                    Hef? I am still working on that. All ideas are welcome.

                    Don A.

                    -//In innocence, Adam as spirit was a dreaming spirit. Thus the synthesis is
                    not actual, for the combining factor is precisely the spirit, and as yet
                    this is not posited as spirit.//- In animals the sexual difference can be
                    developed instinctively, but this cannot be the case with a human being
                    precisely because he is a synthesis. In the moment the spirit posits itself,
                    it posits the synthesis, but in order to posit the synthesis it must pervade
                    it differentiatingly, and the ultimate point of the sensuous is precisely
                    the sexual. -/Man can attain this ultimate point only in the moment the
                    spirit becomes actual. Before that time he is not animal, but neither is he
                    really man./- The moment he becomes man, he becomes so by becoming animal as
                    well. (CA, Hong, p 49)





                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
                    [mailto:kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of James Rovira
                    Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 12:50 PM
                    To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: Hannay & Kierkega


                    Good response. I'll try to to respond in kind.

                    <<JimR,
                    >
                    > Please refer to your post 3875. Also posts 3925 and the one below.
                    >
                    > I find several problems with these scenarios although they are quite
                    > creative. It seems to me that there were two issues that Haufniensis
                    (Hef)
                    > [and presumably SK] want to deal with about original and hereditary sin.
                    > First he wants to keep SK from being placed outside the human race by
                    > making
                    > him some kind of fantastical something. The second one asks what the
                    role
                    > of
                    > knowledge is both for sin and for salvation. These are by no means
                    > exhaustive of the issues.>>
                    >

                    Nope, they're not exhaustive, but I agree as far as it goes.

                    <<The second of these is the one I want to focus on here because I see in
                    whatyou say a partial clarity but there seem to be real confusions as well
                    in

                    > getting what SK is saying. I find this confusion when you are discussing
                    > the
                    > story of the fall and you refer to Adams grasping for knowledge as
                    > "grasping
                    > knowledge in the form of finitude." This is fine for that is what
                    happens
                    > when we seek to overcome the problem of nothing; no-thing. But implied
                    in
                    > this phrase is that there is knowledge that we can grasp in the form of
                    > infinitude and therein is the problem. Perhaps I am wrong but in any
                    case
                    > I
                    > present the following for your consideration and comment.>>
                    >

                    I don't think that "knowledge that we can grasp in the form of infinitude"
                    is implied in the phrase. Once we fall, pass through all the stages, and
                    come to the end--Religiousness B--then we "crucify our intellect" as
                    Climacus says in CUP. So in our states outside of sinfulness, before the
                    fall and after our entry into Religiousness B, knowledge is denied. It's
                    in
                    the intermediate stages characterized by sinfulness that we mess around
                    with
                    knowledge, reflection, finitude, etc.

                    > <<Haufniensis (Hef) says anxiety is caused by nothing - no-thing. Not
                    > knowledge, not desire not even desire for the fruit, not will -
                    no-thing,
                    > nothing. Innocence is ignorance, but not just any old ignorance; it is
                    > ignorance of the self. But according to Hef there is yet no self and
                    even
                    > when the self is posited it is not what it will be in the future, it is
                    > always already becoming and will continue to become a self for a
                    lifetime.
                    > The ignorance of innocence can be said to be the ignorance both of the
                    > self
                    > and of the future - ignorance of the future self. This is the crux of
                    the
                    > problem as Hef sees it and is the source of subjective anxiety - the
                    > future.>>
                    >

                    I agree that anxiety is associated with nothingness, but I think this
                    nothingness of anxiety is not a generic or general nothingness. Adam and
                    Eve living in the garden had a great deal of "known" about them. The
                    nothingness, if you look closely at Hef's (I like this...heh) language is
                    specifically and only in relation to knowledge of the self. From your
                    language above I think you'd agree so far.

                    I would say it is incorrect to say there is no self. There is always a
                    self. In innocence, there is no self that has knowledge of itself--so from
                    the perspective of the self in innocence, there is no self, but the self
                    that does exist and doesn't know it feels anxious about this lack of
                    knowledge -- not knowing it is its own ignorance that it's anxious about,
                    but certainly feeling it. Of course, if it wasn't already a self it
                    wouldn't feel anxious.

                    Totally agree with what you say about becoming in the above paragraph. But
                    we always become what it is we already were without knowing it.

                    > <<At this point the future is nothing but possibility and freedom within
                    > certain limits of necessity (finitude). Humans are free to choose from
                    all
                    > the possible possibilities. So in my freedom I must choose what
                    > possibility
                    > I will make concrete in my life within the limits of my finitude. Sartre
                    > in
                    > commenting on this point in CA said, "I await myself in the future." If
                    we
                    > imagine ourselves out there in our futures we can understand this. But
                    > when
                    > we think of ourselves out there we must not think of ourselves as what
                    we
                    > are now. We will be changed.>>
                    >

                    I agree with the above as far as it goes. I think there should be some
                    qualifications, but I agree with the basic idea.

                    <<We live amidst the existential flux and we change because we must. We
                    > don't
                    > have a choice. The choices we have made and will make today will not
                    > survive
                    > into the future and new choices will need to be made. But we don't know
                    > and
                    > can't know how we will be changed until we are there and even at that,
                    the
                    > moment will be fleeting as the flux continues and the need for more
                    > decisions present themselves again and again "repetitiously This is the
                    > ignorance in question. ". Life is what happens after we've made other
                    > plans.
                    > It's not entirely in our control.
                    >
                    > Subjective anxiety is, to put it simply, wanting to know the future,
                    > wanting
                    > to know that which only God knows, that which is only known from outside
                    > of
                    > existence, knowledge that is beyond the reach of mortals, in short it is
                    > wanting to be God. So because of nothing, non-knowledge, what we can't
                    > know
                    > in a lifetime, we rebel against the eternal, against the work of the
                    > creator, against the way of creation, and we Sin.
                    >
                    > So in this life no form of knowledge is the answer whether it is finite
                    > knowledge or infinite knowledge; infinite knowledge is beyond our grasp
                    in
                    > that it is always deferred, so knowledge is not the answer and both
                    finite
                    > knowledge or infinite knowledge is not something to be grasped. The
                    answer
                    > is faith that God knows and he will provide. This is my interpretation
                    of
                    > SK's interpretation.
                    >
                    > Grape-seed Don>>
                    >

                    I think that's pretty good and doesn't contradict what I've said --
                    especially as it leads up to your final paragraph. "No form of knowledge
                    is
                    the answer" is, I think, one of the fundamental insights of Religiousness
                    B
                    and the crucifixion of the intellect.

                    Jim R

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • billybob98103
                    ... difference ... always ... no ... anxious ... the ... is ... is ... about ... and ... the ... the ... it ... transition. ... it is crushed out of existence.
                    Message 9 of 20 , Sep 30, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > JR, I only interject a point here because I see the opportunity to
                      > more closely define/describe what I see as the bright line
                      difference
                      > between us.
                      >
                      > > I would say it is incorrect to say there is no self. There is
                      always
                      > a self. In innocence, there is no self that has knowledge of
                      > itself--so from the perspective of the self in innocence, there is
                      no
                      > self, but the self that does exist and doesn't know it feels
                      anxious
                      > about this lack of knowledge -- not knowing it is its own ignorance
                      > that it's anxious about, but certainly feeling it. Of course, if it
                      > wasn't already a self it wouldn't feel anxious.
                      >
                      > The bright line appears here. The self that SK is talking about,
                      the
                      > one that enters the process in the aesthetic and exits it in R-B,
                      is
                      > the one that makes its appearance in the leap out of innocence; it
                      is
                      > /this/ self that is the universe of discourse in things
                      > Kierkegaardian. To say again, I say that the self SK is going on
                      about
                      > is the self that makes its appearance in the leap out of innocence,
                      > the self that does not appear until it is engendered by the leap,
                      and
                      > that it is this conditionally confined self that turns out to be
                      the
                      > subjectivity that gets changed in the process of the spheres.
                      >
                      > I say that it, this self, was conditionally confined to meet the
                      > requirements of its demise in the transition from the aesthetic to
                      the
                      > ethical sphere, and that what SK was doing in CA was defining how
                      it
                      > could have come into being to dissolve as it had in the
                      transition.
                      > ----willy
                      >Willy, The subject for SK is never disolved in the sense that
                      it is crushed out of existence. The self is changed, instead.
                      The "leap" is achieved when the subject comes down in the same
                      place from which it emerged in the "leap". Just as in dance,
                      the subject extends itself, but never loses its continuity,
                      but is changed in the process of the exhilaration of its
                      activity. Bill
                    • Will Brown
                      ... Bill, well, obviously, the respective experiences that we use to interpret SK by do not match; I see a discontinuity where you do not see one. All that
                      Message 10 of 20 , Oct 1, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > >Willy, The subject for SK is never disolved in the sense that
                        > it is crushed out of existence. The self is changed, instead.
                        > The "leap" is achieved when the subject comes down in the same
                        > place from which it emerged in the "leap". Just as in dance,
                        > the subject extends itself, but never loses its continuity,
                        > but is changed in the process of the exhilaration of its
                        > activity. Bill
                        >

                        Bill, well, obviously, the respective experiences that we use to
                        interpret SK by do not match; I see a discontinuity where you do not
                        see one. All that probably means is that if we were to interpret the
                        same passages, our respective interpretations would not have a common
                        ground. Your view seems more in line with JR. ----willy
                      • billybob98103
                        ... in ... differences between ... while I say ... dreaming desire, ... I. ... because the self ... spirit is ... not ... well as ... relation that ...
                        Message 11 of 20 , Oct 1, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
                          <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Don --
                          >
                          > This is good stuff as it gets us closer to some of our differences
                          in
                          > language, and probably gets closer to the source of the
                          differences between
                          > Will and I, in that he separates innocence from the aesthetic,
                          while I say
                          > that innocence is just the immediate pole of the aesthetic,
                          dreaming desire,
                          > because of parallels between H's language and A's langauge in E/O
                          I.
                          >
                          > If we define the self as a relation, then there is no self,
                          because the self
                          > hasn't posited itself yet.
                          >
                          > If we define spirit as the self, then there is a self, because
                          spirit is
                          > obviously present in the quotation even though it is dreaming.
                          >
                          > If we define the self as physical-psychical-spirit even if they're
                          not
                          > relating, then there is a self, because body and mind or soul as
                          well as
                          > spirit all exist in the quotation you provided.
                          >
                          > A-C in SUD defines the self as Both spirit And a relation (a
                          relation that
                          > relates itself to itself and to the other that grounds this
                          relation--God).
                          >
                          >
                          > So which way do we go? Obviously the whole picture is both-and,
                          but the
                          > question is, does spirit exist at all before it posits itself?
                          >
                          > Well, it must. It can't posit itself if it doesn't already exist.
                          > Furthermore, H elsewhere defines spirit as the volitional center
                          of a human
                          > being and as the eternal aspect of a human being. Spirit must
                          exist at all
                          > times, otherwise it couldn't be eternal, and it couldn't choose.
                          >
                          > But, can we say this body-soul-spirit conglomeration which isn't
                          yet
                          > relating itself to itself is a self?
                          >
                          > That is indeed the question. I say yes, it is, it is a self in a
                          state of
                          > dreaming desire, a self that is unaware of itself as itself, and I
                          base that
                          > on similarities in language between A in E/O I and CA :). Also,
                          because A-C
                          > said "spirit is the self." Spirit is the relation, but not -only-
                          the
                          > relation, otherwise it would not be eternal. So the self exists
                          as spirit
                          > before spirit becomes the relation and -knows- it is itself.
                          >
                          > Will would say no, it is not, so innocence is a stage prior to the
                          aesthetic
                          > and the self doesn't come into existence until the aesthetic
                          stage. He
                          > hasn't supported this contention with direct quotes from K that I
                          can
                          > recall, but believes this assumption underlies K's presentation in
                          the
                          > pseudonymous works.
                          >
                          > Jim R
                          > Jim, a way out of this problem is merely to understand that
                          Kierkegaard believes one is human before one becomes human.
                          This as Hannay explains is incomprehensible to an Hegelian, but
                          for Kierkegaard it is the basis for the understanding of the
                          individual becoming an "exception". Bill.
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • billybob98103
                          ... not ... the ... common ... with SK s.
                          Message 12 of 20 , Oct 1, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > > >Willy, The subject for SK is never disolved in the sense that
                            > > it is crushed out of existence. The self is changed, instead.
                            > > The "leap" is achieved when the subject comes down in the same
                            > > place from which it emerged in the "leap". Just as in dance,
                            > > the subject extends itself, but never loses its continuity,
                            > > but is changed in the process of the exhilaration of its
                            > > activity. Bill
                            > >
                            >
                            > Bill, well, obviously, the respective experiences that we use to
                            > interpret SK by do not match; I see a discontinuity where you do
                            not
                            > see one. All that probably means is that if we were to interpret
                            the
                            > same passages, our respective interpretations would not have a
                            common
                            > ground. Your view seems more in line with JR. ----willy
                            >Willy, yes, but I believe Jim's interpretation is consistent
                            with SK's.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.