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

A brief

Expand Messages
  • Médéric Laitier
    Hello Ricky, Alloah willy, The disjuncitve pair of yours have me exhausted for you are inviting me to disjunct again when I thought I had set a full stop to my
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 3 10:19 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Ricky, Alloah willy,

      The disjuncitve pair of yours have me exhausted for you are inviting me to
      disjunct again when I thought I had set a full stop to my entertaining the
      tie between I and disjunction.

      A brief, therefore, a brief:

      Dear Rich Rick, Rich of the richest riches that are certainties,

      What can I say but that, in a nutshell, you are absolutely right. My only
      concern would be: How do force Kierkegaard's philosophy in a nutshell?

      Can you send me the instructions, (if you had a french version, I would
      appriciate -- larger, better efficient corporates as yourself usually have
      ready made instructions in any language one should fancy so I hope... --)
      Thanks in advance...

      Dear Poor willy, so poor that he cannot afford a capital W to his Christian
      name...

      Well, have you noticed the splendid disjunctive form of a nutsell before it
      has gone under (sunder) the crackers, this is splendid metaphore, isn't
      it... I believe Rick is most definitely rich of promises. To have such
      metaphores at his disposal and not even to be aware of it. You must (ethical
      must) initiate him. To duty now, to duty...

      PS: Have you read Jim's post to you. I was on several occasions burning to
      ask you exactly the same question regarding your beloved ethico-religious
      sphere. This time you've got you, no slying out, vile snake!!

      Catch you later,
      ML
      .
    • borderealis
      Lyin Ole Richie, How would one go about answering your question? Isn t there a danger of answering question about questions with question and there being no
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 4 10:42 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Lyin' Ole Richie,

        How would one go about answering your question? Isn't there a danger
        of answering question about questions with question and there being
        no answers? Some bloke told me once that Kierkegaard's words are just
        one big defense against the reader finding an answer in them.

        Oh, hell, it's easy. All that is required is to find the unfindable.

        Bordo Unboarded

        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "hakoohaj" <hakoohaj@y...>
        wrote:
        >
        > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, Médéric Laitier
        > <mederic.laitier@t...> wrote:
        > > Hello Ricky, Alloah willy,
        > >
        > > The disjuncitve pair of yours have me exhausted for you are
        inviting
        > me to
        > > disjunct again when I thought I had set a full stop to my
        > entertaining the
        > > tie between I and disjunction.
        > >
        > > A brief, therefore, a brief:
        > >
        > > Dear Rich Rick, Rich of the richest riches that are certainties,
        > >
        > > What can I say but that, in a nutshell, you are absolutely right.
        My
        > only
        > > concern would be: How do force Kierkegaard's philosophy in a
        > nutshell?
        > >
        > > Can you send me the instructions, (if you had a french version, I
        > would
        > > appriciate -- larger, better efficient corporates as yourself
        > usually have
        > > ready made instructions in any language one should fancy so I
        > hope... --)
        > > Thanks in advance...
        > >
        > > Dear Poor willy, so poor that he cannot afford a capital W to his
        > Christian
        > > name...
        > >
        > > Well, have you noticed the splendid disjunctive form of a nutsell
        > before it
        > > has gone under (sunder) the crackers, this is splendid metaphore,
        > isn't
        > > it... I believe Rick is most definitely rich of promises. To have
        > such
        > > metaphores at his disposal and not even to be aware of it. You
        must
        > (ethical
        > > must) initiate him. To duty now, to duty...
        > >
        > > PS: Have you read Jim's post to you. I was on several occasions
        > burning to
        > > ask you exactly the same question regarding your beloved
        > ethico-religious
        > > sphere. This time you've got you, no slying out, vile snake!!
        > >
        > > Catch you later,
        > > ML
        >
        > Master Mederic,
        >
        > You ask of me, "What can I say but that, in a nutshell, you are
        > absolutely right. My only concern would be: How do force
        Kierkegaard's
        > philosophy in a nutshell? Can you send me the instructions, (if you
        > had a french version, I would appriciate -- larger, better efficient
        > corporates as yourself usually have ready made instructions in any
        > language one should fancy so I hope... --) Thanks in advance..."
        >
        > My dear sir, it was your suggestion. My question in return asks why
        > you reacted as you did. Like jeopardy, what is the question whose
        > answer is Kierkegaard's philosophy? Can you say that my answer to
        that
        > question can't provide the answer Kierkegaard found? What is your
        > answer?
        >
        > Rick
      • borderealis
        Hi Hak, I think I can speaka your language. Sorry for the delay. I hope I remember what was happening. If not, I might have to compose some account of what
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 15 9:52 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Hak,

          I think I can speaka your language. Sorry for the delay. I hope I
          remember what was happening. If not, I might have to compose some
          account of what might have been happening that might not have been
          happening. I hope the end of my delay came in time to prevent that
          from happening.

          Of course, if one looks at the defense as having been looked at by
          Kierkegaard, there is always a further question of whether he looked
          at it as having been looked at in the same way. In a way, there is
          something about considering...you can consider things, and consider
          the different ways of considering them. You can consider the
          difference between a considered matter and an unconsidered matter.
          And, then, if you are truly considerate, the question of whether the
          matter under consideration has been truly considered. At some point,
          didn't SK start talking about the question of how to start talking?
          Kind of funny that one is saying what one is saying, isn't it?

          I just had an insight into the distinction you are making, and the
          insight is into the difference between having the insight and making
          the distinction. A strange distinction. I sometimes wonder if what
          I'm saying makes any sense, and then I see that it does, so long as I
          see the difference between making sense of what I'm saying and saying
          what makes sense.

          Ah, I see what you are saying. Is the leap from fate to freedom a
          fated leap or a free leap, if freedom is what gives the meaning
          to "leap." You are saying that the leap can be seen as fated. Indeed,
          it can. I like to think of the leap as coming into existence, where
          consciousness of coming into existence is what differentiates the
          leap from unconscious coming into existence. Well, I differentiate
          that, but I suppose that is beside the point, eh?

          Does this have something to do with another forum the topic of which
          is a man who never passed from inattentiveness to attentiveness?

          So, how do you make the problem a personal one, or avoid doing so,
          for that matter. I guess you are saying, make it a task, accomplished
          or unaccomplished, unleapt or leapt, and the task appears - but you
          don't have to make the task appear if you simply refrain from making
          it a task? Is that the Grace of God? My Lord!

          Having Fun,
          Bordo

          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "hakoohaj" <hakoohaj@y...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Ms. Bordo,
          >
          > You did not say if you thought that defense was planned or not
          > planned? Wouldn't looking at the defense reveal that? You see, it
          goes
          > down like this. It matters not if there is no answer because
          > Kierkegaard offers an answer that is there for all to see. Faith
          > raised to the second power. Christianity raised to the second power.
          > So what must the problem be? First power faith and Christianity,
          > right? I mean, that's not rocket science. You have to drag time into
          > it, find the God-relation as always here and now, and go through it
          to
          > get to the other side.
          >
          > My deal against willyb is this. If any system can be explicated
          > logically it is open to having been arrived at by necessity. If
          > getting across a disjunction is required, a leap is necessary. How
          do
          > you work out that connection between something that is of time and
          > something that is not of time? Make that problem a personal one and
          a
          > subjective disjunction automatically appears. See, you do not have
          to
          > have jumped across to see the necessity for jumping across. I see
          it.
          > In the main, I agree with his view of what Kierkegaard is saying and
          > yet I have not jumped across merde. I am living proof that his view
          is
          > limited.
          >
          > Either/Or ---- Genius/Apostle?
          >
          > Ric
        • borderealis
          Hakoo, I m going to take a leap and say that you understand me. You are establishing a difference between appropriating the leap and understanding the leap.
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 17 7:19 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hakoo,

            I'm going to take a leap and say that you understand me. You are
            establishing a difference between appropriating the leap and
            understanding the leap. You are inviting me to leap to the
            understanding that all that is necessary to appropriate the leap is
            to understand the leap. So understanding IS the appropriation, and
            that expresses the understanding of identity between the two, and
            this understanding is the understanding that negates the difference
            you set up. Do you see this as the correct way of talking about this,
            or is there a different, better way of talking about it that I
            haven't yet "leapt to," for lack of a better term. Or, is this just
            to repeat the repetition?

            Madam Bordo

            --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "hakoohaj" <hakoohaj@y...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Ms. Bordo,
            >
            > You do appear to be reflecting back what I have said. I think what
            you
            > are saying exemplifies the use of the logic I was referring to. It
            is
            > not the content of what is being said but the form of the logic used
            > to explicate that content. You have just said, "Ah, I see what you
            are
            > saying. Is the leap from fate to freedom a fated leap or a free
            leap,
            > if freedom is what gives the meaning to "leap." You are saying that
            > the leap can be seen as fated. Indeed, it can. I like to think of
            the
            > leap as coming into existence, where consciousness of coming into
            > existence is what differentiates the leap from unconscious coming
            into
            > existence. Well, I differentiate that, but I suppose that is beside
            > the point, eh?"
            >
            > You are talking about a leap from one ledge to another using
            opposites
            > to represent the ledges. That is logically necessary to get the leap
            > off the ground both figuratively and literally. But then you go on
            to
            > describe the leap itself as transcending the opposites. Again that
            is
            > logically necessary if the leap is to have a disjunctive quality
            about
            > it. See what you have done? Set up the transition in terms of
            > opposites, then negate the opposites in the transition. This is the
            > qualitative disjunction and it only describes as a return to the
            > beginning in a new light. Call it repetition and the structure is in
            > place. Any subjective term you want to use can be tossed into that
            > structure and it comes out raised to the second power.
            >
            > I say that I can recognize that existential movement form from the
            > logical structure of it and that an appropriation is not necessary
            for
            > that recognition. If I am not dissembling when I say that, simply
            > saying that is the proof of it. Now, not that you did not see what I
            > was saying but does that clarify it?
            >
            > Hookah
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.