- When did I say anything about a system, Bill? In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Climacus describes humor as the transitional phase betweenMessage 1 of 74 , Feb 25, 2007View SourceWhen did I say anything about a "system," Bill? In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Climacus describes humor as the transitional phase between Religiousness A and B. That is all. If I sounded like I was systematizing, that is because Climacus sounds like he is systematizing in CUP. But at the same time, he mocks those who reduce themselves to elements within a system.
You've read CUP, right? Or are you just quoting what other people say about it again?
Jim ROn 2/25/07, Bill <billybob98103@...> wrote:
--- In email@example.com, "James Rovira"
Jim R., Sorry, but humour is not a part of any system you would create
to explain your life, or the life another. That is merely the violence
of "double-mindedness" that puts a happy face on being a systematizer.
Instead, it is what is "left over" from any limitations of a system to
explain the finite world. It is religiousness A that cannot over come
its immanence that prevents realising Religiousness B.
- JS, I just posted something to JR that was, in fact, also meant as a response to you summarizing my general position with respect to our First Chunk discourse.Message 74 of 74 , Mar 9 2:23 PMView Source
JS, I just posted something to JR that was, in fact, also meant as a response to you summarizing my general position with respect to our First Chunk discourse. So, I had not abandoned the quest completely, just thought I would approach it from another angle; like backing off to the general view instead of being bogged down in the particulars.I was just this morning working on the second chunk, which I found interesting, but difficult. The difficulty is one of finding the best mode of response, but I shall light upon one and toss another chunk at you. ----willy
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jimstuart46" <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
> Dear Willy,
> In your post 5543 ("Chunk-Chunk"), you misunderstand what I
> wrote in my post 5541 ("Re: 1st Chunk").
> Here if what you write, with my comment first in blue, and you reply in
> << Thank you for you post 5527. Whilst you clarify a number of things, I
> don't see you as saying anything new in the post, so I don't have
> anything to say in response apart from that you didn't actually give me
> the page references I was after. What I would like, if possible, is the
> Hong page numbers for these three quotes from the Steere edition of PH:
> JS, I was about to settle down for some more chunking when what you said
> above finally sank in. Yep, I was too dense to catch it the first time
> around. Since my "more chunking" would be a continuation of my prior
> chunking, and in that you saw nothing new that would require a response,
> why then should I expect a response to that which I was about to create?
> Well, then, thought I, to whom should I then be speaking if I were to
> continue chunking? Perhaps to myself, which I must admit I do much of
> around here? How about the clown? Perfect thought I. So be it! Why beat
> a dead horse when there is a live clown around? ----willy
> When I said I did not see anything new in your post I was referring just
> to your post 5541, which seemed to me to be the point where the "1st
> Chunk" thread petered out.
> Your previous four posts to me 5464, 5468, 5469 & 5488 all contained a
> lot of new stuff, and as I remarked in my post 5474 ("Re: The
> Language of Reflection (part 2)"), they "helped me to improve my
> understanding of your interpretation of K, and they have also helped me
> to progress my own understanding of K."
> If you recall, your "1st Chunk" post 5488 was a response to only
> the first two paragraphs of my post 5474 the part dealing with the
> question of whether "in eternity" referred to the here and now
> or life after death or perhaps even both of these.
> In the rest of my post 5474 I talked about a number of issues relating
> to "the absolute view of the self-change". In particular I ask
> you a number of questions about your view concerning which I am keen to
> hear what you have to say. I am sure in answering my questions you will
> be saying something new to me, otherwise I would have no need for asking
> you the questions.
> If you are now bored with the subject matter of the thread "The
> Language of Reflection (part 2)", please do not trouble yourself to
> respond to the rest of my post 5474, but as I say, if you do respond, I
> will read your reply/replies with interest.
> To make things easy I will copy and paste below the section of my post
> 5474 which you have not responded to.
> Extract from my post 5474 ("Re: The Language of Reflection (part
> A second criticism is that your description of the absolute way of
> self-change is based on an anti-Christian theory of personal identity.
> According to the absolute way, you have existed as two different
> individuals or selves: the aesthetic individual "WB1" before your
> aesthetic-to-ethical transition and the ethical individual "WB2" after
> your absolute transition.
> As I understand you, the individual WB1 went out of existence in the
> late sixties (or was it the seventies?), and the new individual WB2 was
> created out of nothing. Although the US state authorities only recognize
> one person "William Brown", in reality there have been two people who
> have possessed the official ID for "William Brown".
> Whilst I have no worries about the US authorities being in the wrong, I
> suggest that K does not hold to this "two persons" view of "William
> Brown" because it is contrary to traditional Christian doctrine.
> As I read K he was a conservative when it came to traditional Christian
> doctrine he had no wish to question or amend what he understood as
> Christian dogma.
> It is traditional Christian doctrine that God created each of us as one
> person or self at our conception. This self continues as one self
> throughout its earthly existence, and continues as the same self after
> death when it is judged and ends up in heaven or hell.
> Each of us, as one single individual, is at death responsible for all
> our actions throughout our earthly lives, in particular we are each
> responsible for the sins we have committed.
> On your two-self view, WB2 is not responsible for the actions or sins of
> WB1, as WB2 is not the same person as WB1.
> Your view, which fits more closely with Eastern ideas of the self, is
> heretical with respect to Christianity, and, I suggest, K would not
> countenance such a view.
> Let me pick up these sentences of yours where you criticise the relative
> way of self-change:
> << There are a few difficulties in applying the above form of
> self-change to SK's words, even if he, from time to time, refers not to
> death but a dying to. The first and foremost being that in many places
> he describes the self-change in terms that may be read as absolutely
> requiring an absolute change of identity. >>
> Can you give references and/or quotes for these "many places" where K
> describes the self-change as requiring "an absolute change of identity"?
> In your post 5468 you ask:
> << How can you see an absolute disjunction in the transition from the
> esthetic to the ethical and not see what I am talking about? We must not
> have the same idea of what an absolute disjunction means when it comes
> to subjectivity. What do you mean? >>
> I interpret K's talk of an "absolute disjunction" as implying an
> absolute change of the individual (the self) as a result of the leap
> from the lower sphere to the higher sphere. For me the absolute
> disjunction means the (same) self changing absolutely, for you it means
> that the old self dies (is annihilated) and the new self is created from
> It would be helpful if you could list all the places where K uses the
> term "absolute disjunction". From memory, I recall he only uses the term
> to describe the religiousness A to religiousness B
> transition; not, as you believe, the aesthetic-to-ethical transition.
> But I may be wrong here.
> The quotes you give from your post 5469 are very helpful and do show
> that K did distinguish between "bad" reflection and "good" reflection.
> Bad reflection is the kind of objective reflection of the Hegelians who
> "cast all Christian relationships into reflection".
> Good reflection is subjective reflection, "a god fearing reflection", "
> a reflection on himself, which is itself an action", "the infinite
> reflection", "another kind of reflection, specifically, that of
> inwardness, of possession, whereby it belongs to the subject and no one
> else", "the reflection of inwardness the subjective thinker's
> double reflection".
> However, whilst this kind of reflection is worthwhile, even essential
> for the individual who has become ensnared by objective reflection, it
> must always be remembered that "one does not become a Christian through
> With regard to the question of whether K saw it as his task to "cast all
> the Christian relationships into reflection", the following quote does
> seem to support your view:
> "Thus he completed the task of reflectionto cast Christianity,
> becoming a Christian, wholly and fully into reflection. The purity of
> his heart was to will only one thing." (PV, Hong, p. 97)
> I do not have a copy of PV, so I would like to read this quote within
> its context. Could you put the quote embedded in its paragraph with the
> preceding and following paragraph included as well?
> It is not clear to me who the "he" in the quote refers to, or who has
> "the task of reflection".
> I am not sure to what extent the quotes you include support your
> interpretation of K. For example, I note that "the leap is the category
> of decision", which fits my interpretation of the aesthetic-to-ethical
> transition exactly, but is an embarrassment to your view, as I don't
> think you see the aesthetic-to-ethical transition as essentially "a
> [End of extract from my post 5474]