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

Which Self? (1)

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    ... world (as a synthesis of spirit, mind, body), and secondly, a thing that may or may not have knowledge of itself but is capable of having knowledge of
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      >>> Will -- The "self" is, first of all, a thing that exists in the
      world (as a synthesis of spirit, mind, body), and secondly, a thing
      that may or may not have knowledge of itself but is capable of having
      knowledge of itself. Does a self exist in innocence even if it hasn't
      posited itself? Jim R <<<

      >> Wouldn't an answer to the affirmative do away with the concept of a
      leap? ----willy <<

      > I don't think so, because the leap is in self-understanding--it is
      existential. We don't create ourselves out of nothing. Something has
      to already be there to make the leap. The leap is in positing the
      self. Jim R <

      Well, you don't think so because you don't think so; this defines the
      meaning of existential for you. When you say that something has to be
      there to make the leap, you are opting for the meaning of self that
      requires /it/ to make the leap. I opt for the meaning of self that
      first requires the leap to posit /it/. At issue here is what /SK/
      means by self, what self he is talking about when he says that this
      self has to go through the process that is the existence spheres to
      get to his definition of 'true' Christianity.

      I think Don has pegged it perfectly when he refers to the posit of the
      self as the factor that brings all of the parts together into an
      actualized whole that may be properly called spirit. Don provided a
      quote of the passage where this is what is being said. I'll repeat it
      here from Thomte.

      "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, Thomte, pp. 48-49)

      In the preceding paragraphs it is stated that the synthesis of the
      psyche and body that is being spoken to requires the spirit to sustain
      it. Since it is the self that is posited in the leap, the self /is/
      defined as spirit. Now, I say that what is being said in the book is
      that this leap was into a temporal sense of self, which created the
      misrelation that the transition to the ethical sphere is to correct.
      ----willy
    • billybob98103
      ... having ... hasn t ... of a ... is ... has ... the ... be ... the ... it ... be ... in ... and ... sustain ... is ... correct. ... Willy, for what its
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > >>> Will -- The "self" is, first of all, a thing that exists in the
        > world (as a synthesis of spirit, mind, body), and secondly, a thing
        > that may or may not have knowledge of itself but is capable of
        having
        > knowledge of itself. Does a self exist in innocence even if it
        hasn't
        > posited itself? Jim R <<<
        >
        > >> Wouldn't an answer to the affirmative do away with the concept
        of a
        > leap? ----willy <<
        >
        > > I don't think so, because the leap is in self-understanding--it
        is
        > existential. We don't create ourselves out of nothing. Something
        has
        > to already be there to make the leap. The leap is in positing the
        > self. Jim R <
        >
        > Well, you don't think so because you don't think so; this defines
        the
        > meaning of existential for you. When you say that something has to
        be
        > there to make the leap, you are opting for the meaning of self that
        > requires /it/ to make the leap. I opt for the meaning of self that
        > first requires the leap to posit /it/. At issue here is what /SK/
        > means by self, what self he is talking about when he says that this
        > self has to go through the process that is the existence spheres to
        > get to his definition of 'true' Christianity.
        >
        > I think Don has pegged it perfectly when he refers to the posit of
        the
        > self as the factor that brings all of the parts together into an
        > actualized whole that may be properly called spirit. Don provided a
        > quote of the passage where this is what is being said. I'll repeat
        it
        > here from Thomte.
        >
        > "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, Thomte, pp. 48-49)
        >
        > In the preceding paragraphs it is stated that the synthesis of the
        > psyche and body that is being spoken to requires the spirit to
        sustain
        > it. Since it is the self that is posited in the leap, the self /is/
        > defined as spirit. Now, I say that what is being said in the book
        is
        > that this leap was into a temporal sense of self, which created the
        > misrelation that the transition to the ethical sphere is to
        correct.
        > ----willy
        >
        Willy, for what its worth, I agree with Jim. I would only
        characterise what "exists" as the transformation of the will
        by it being given a momentum of its own,or for-itself, instead of
        depending
        on what it believes is "outside" itself. I believe Jim
        made the later distinction very clear in a previous remark of
        his in this dialogue. Bill.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.