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

Re: [Kierkegaardians] 1st Chunk

Expand Messages
  • James Rovira
    That s beyond the pale as in paling or a fence. Outside the boundaries. Jim R
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 3 4:11 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      That's "beyond the pale" as in "paling" or a fence.  Outside the boundaries. 

      Jim R
    • Will Brown
      JR, that is beyond the pail for any who kicks the bucket; don t you see the exquisite pun I played upon you, or any else who would think of pale... I wondered
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 3 4:42 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        JR, that is beyond the pail for any who kicks the bucket; don't you see the exquisite pun I played upon you, or any else who would think of pale...

        I wondered who might pick up that string attached wallet! >:)


        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira" <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
        >
        > That's "beyond the pale" as in "paling" or a fence. Outside the
        > boundaries.
        >
        > Jim R
        >
      • James Rovira
        Ha...I was reading too quickly. I don t know that the pun was exquisite, but it was certainly entertaining... Jim R
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 3 4:49 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Ha...I was reading too quickly.  I don't know that the pun was exquisite, but it was certainly entertaining...

          Jim R

          On 03 Mar 2007 16:43:23 -0800, Will Brown <wilbro99@...> wrote:

          JR, that is beyond the pail for any who kicks the bucket; don't you see the exquisite pun I played upon you, or any else who would think of pale...

        • jimstuart46
          Dear Willy, In your post 5488 you complain that I have gone wrong in interpreting K s use of the phrase in eternity to refer to a time after the (physical)
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 4 7:25 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Willy,

            In your post 5488 you complain that I have gone wrong in
            interpreting K's use of the phrase "in eternity" to refer to a time
            after the (physical) death of the individual.

            Well, I'm not sure. I agree that K does talk of the eternal breaking
            into time for the individual of faith, and I accept that talk of
            eternity may be appropriate when the single individual is alone with
            his conscience, but I still think that in the passages you
            quote, "in eternity" refers to a time after death.

            I don't know if you have the Hong page references for PH, so I can
            check the quotes in their context in my edition of PH.

            Let me ask you some questions about your understanding of K. First,
            do you think K actually believed in life after death? What you write
            in your post 5488 suggests a negative answer.

            Do you accept that a belief in life after death is traditional
            Christian doctrine? Do you accept that K did not question
            traditional Christianity doctrine?

            Consider this passage:

            "Alas, already here in temporality a collective failure is a poor
            comfort, and in eternity there is no collective failure?" (PH, Hong,
            p. 148)

            Do you agree that K uses the word "eternity" as implying the
            opposite of "temporality"?

            Consider this passage:

            "Indeed, in eternity the single individual, you, my listener, and I,
            will be questioned as an individual, alone by himself as an
            individual, and about the particulars in his life." (PH, Hong, pp.
            148-9)

            Here is my reading of this passage: The questioning – which is said
            to be in the future – is to take place after K's death and the death
            of his listener. The person doing the questioning is to be God, and
            the questions are to cover all the particulars of the individual's
            life.

            Is my interpretation here really beyond the pale/pail? Arguably, we
            can prepare for this questioning by God after our deaths, by
            questioning ourselves here and now – by shutting the world out and
            being alone with our consciences. I accept that when I do this, it
            may be appropriate to say that I am in eternity.

            So I agree that eternity can break into our temporal existences when
            we still our minds, avoid self-deception, and listen to our
            consciences. But I still maintain that K, as a devout Christian who
            did not question Christian dogma or the authority of The Bible, was
            living his temporal existence in the light of the judgement after
            his death.

            Finally, I'm not sure your final quote from PH (Steere, p. 186)
            supports you view of "in eternity" being in the here and now. Isn't
            eternity contrasted with "the temporal order" in this passage:

            "[T]hroughout eternity an infinite stillness reigns wherein the
            conscience may talk with the individual … Here in the temporal order
            conscience is prepared to make each person into an individual" (PH,
            Steere, p. 186)

            So "in the temporal order" our conscience can do its good work – if
            we are prepared to let it! – but "in eternity" there is nothing but
            my conscience and I, indeed my conscience and I will be one.

            Yours,

            Jim Stuart
          • KTP
            ... see ... Old Fart, have you had hip surgery yet? The other day, Thor s Day, I played a trick on my good friend Jim A; Jim A had hip surgery, twice, on the
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 4 10:47 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > JR, that is beyond the pail for any who kicks the bucket; don't you
              see
              > the exquisite pun I played upon you, or any else who would think of
              > pale...
              >
              > I wondered who might pick up that string attached wallet! [>:)]
              >


              Old Fart, have you had hip surgery yet?

              The other day, Thor's Day, I played a trick on my good friend Jim A; Jim
              A had hip surgery, twice, on the same hip. I dropped a $50 in front of
              him and said "Oh look a $50. s'tha't yours Jim?" Before he could put
              his foot on it I reached down and grabbed it. Thank God I did or else we
              would might have had a fight. If he had fallen down and grabbed it first
              I would have lost a fifty. It would have been worth it though cause I
              would have left him there clutching the fifty for a couple of days!
              Maybe in those two days I would have brought him a sandwitch for the
              fifty!

              Nick_the_Joker
            • Bill
              ... wrote: Jim S. Thank-you for your quote. I agree with you that Willy seems to misunderstand SK. Can you explain how consciousness
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 4 2:44 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart46"
                <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
                Jim S. Thank-you for your quote. I agree with you that Willy seems
                to misunderstand SK. Can you explain how consciousness "talks" to
                the individual? In a previous post I explained how this was done
                through language, and specifically with the NOT. Thank-you, Bill
                > Dear Willy,
                >
                > In your post 5488 you complain that I have gone wrong in
                > interpreting K's use of the phrase "in eternity" to refer to a time
                > after the (physical) death of the individual.
                >
                > Well, I'm not sure. I agree that K does talk of the eternal
                breaking
                > into time for the individual of faith, and I accept that talk of
                > eternity may be appropriate when the single individual is alone
                with
                > his conscience, but I still think that in the passages you
                > quote, "in eternity" refers to a time after death.
                >
                > I don't know if you have the Hong page references for PH, so I can
                > check the quotes in their context in my edition of PH.
                >
                > Let me ask you some questions about your understanding of K. First,
                > do you think K actually believed in life after death? What you
                write
                > in your post 5488 suggests a negative answer.
                >
                > Do you accept that a belief in life after death is traditional
                > Christian doctrine? Do you accept that K did not question
                > traditional Christianity doctrine?
                >
                > Consider this passage:
                >
                > "Alas, already here in temporality a collective failure is a poor
                > comfort, and in eternity there is no collective failure?" (PH,
                Hong,
                > p. 148)
                >
                > Do you agree that K uses the word "eternity" as implying the
                > opposite of "temporality"?
                >
                > Consider this passage:
                >
                > "Indeed, in eternity the single individual, you, my listener, and
                I,
                > will be questioned as an individual, alone by himself as an
                > individual, and about the particulars in his life." (PH, Hong, pp.
                > 148-9)
                >
                > Here is my reading of this passage: The questioning – which is said
                > to be in the future – is to take place after K's death and the
                death
                > of his listener. The person doing the questioning is to be God, and
                > the questions are to cover all the particulars of the individual's
                > life.
                >
                > Is my interpretation here really beyond the pale/pail? Arguably, we
                > can prepare for this questioning by God after our deaths, by
                > questioning ourselves here and now – by shutting the world out and
                > being alone with our consciences. I accept that when I do this, it
                > may be appropriate to say that I am in eternity.
                >
                > So I agree that eternity can break into our temporal existences
                when
                > we still our minds, avoid self-deception, and listen to our
                > consciences. But I still maintain that K, as a devout Christian who
                > did not question Christian dogma or the authority of The Bible, was
                > living his temporal existence in the light of the judgement after
                > his death.
                >
                > Finally, I'm not sure your final quote from PH (Steere, p. 186)
                > supports you view of "in eternity" being in the here and now. Isn't
                > eternity contrasted with "the temporal order" in this passage:
                >
                > "[T]hroughout eternity an infinite stillness reigns wherein the
                > conscience may talk with the individual … Here in the temporal
                order
                > conscience is prepared to make each person into an individual" (PH,
                > Steere, p. 186)
                >
                > So "in the temporal order" our conscience can do its good work – if
                > we are prepared to let it! – but "in eternity" there is nothing but
                > my conscience and I, indeed my conscience and I will be one.
                >
                > Yours,
                >
                > Jim Stuart
                >
              • James Rovira
                Jim S: I think in the two quotations you provided, eternity does indeed seem to refer to our existence after death. The tenses of the verbs lean that way.
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 4 5:30 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jim S:

                  I think in the two quotations you provided, "eternity" does indeed seem to refer to our existence after death.  The tenses of the verbs lean that way. But in K in general the eternal is one pole of our existence, balanced by the temporal.  Given that, the significance of the eternal is how much we allow it to impact our thinking about ourselves.  For example, in Religiousness A, everything is eternal, but everything's eternal nature is understood to be hidden beneath temporal appearances.

                  Jim R
                • Will Brown
                  Now that JR and Bill have joined in opining against my view, the crowd having gathered in opposition to my admittedly off-the-wall writings, let me toss the
                  Message 8 of 16 , Mar 6 9:19 AM
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Now that JR and Bill have joined in opining against my view, the crowd having gathered in opposition to my admittedly off-the-wall writings, let me toss the following across the bright line:

                    << Dear Willy, In your post 5488 you complain that I have gone wrong in interpreting K's use of the phrase "in eternity" to refer to a time after the (physical) death of the individual. >>

                    I don't recall "complaining" about anything. I did state that I do not see it as you see it; if that is a complaint in your eyes, so be it.

                    << Well, I'm not sure. I agree that K does talk of the eternal breaking into time for the individual of faith, and I accept that talk of eternity may be appropriate when the single individual is alone with his conscience, but I still think that in the passages you quote, "in eternity" refers to a time after death. >>

                    Sounds to me like you are hedging your bets. Seriously though, admitting another meaning of eternity into the discussion does muddy your position.

                    <<I don't know if you have the Hong page references for PH, so I can check the quotes in their context in my edition of PH.>>

                    Your Hong quote (p. 48) is Steere (p. 211)

                    << Let me ask you some questions about your understanding of K. First, do you think K actually believed in life after death? What you write in your post 5488 suggests a negative answer. >>

                    Color me curious, but what did I suggest that makes you think otherwise?

                    << Do you accept that a belief in life after death is traditional Christian doctrine? Do you accept that K did not question traditional Christianity doctrine? >>

                    Well, if there is a heaven and a hell there must be someone to populate those two places. On the second, don't know enough to even speculate.

                    << Consider this passage: "Alas, already here in temporality a collective failure is a poor comfort, and in eternity there is no collective failure?" (PH, Hong, p. 148) Do you agree that K uses the word "eternity" as implying the opposite of "temporality"? >>

                    Yep. Here is where the problem begins; there being the eternal that breaks into time as opposed to the eternal as the after death place.

                    << Consider this passage: "Indeed, in eternity the single individual, you, my listener, and I, will be questioned as an individual, alone by himself as an individual, and about the particulars in his life." (PH, Hong, pp. 148-9)

                    Here is my reading of this passage: The questioning – which is said to be in the future – is to take place after K's death and the death of his listener. The person doing the questioning is to be God, and the questions are to cover all the particulars of the individual's life. >>

                    I see our disconnect very clearly from this reading of yours. The voicing of the passage does indeed seem to suggest your reading; however, and I shall address this in a separate response; it appears to me that from the structuring of the book itself, as Chapter 12 explains, that this looking back is not from the other side of the kicked bucket, er, beyond the pail.

                    << Is my interpretation here really beyond the pale/pail? Arguably, we can prepare for this questioning by God after our deaths, by questioning ourselves here and now – by shutting the world out and being alone with our consciences. I accept that when I do this, it may be appropriate to say that I am in eternity.
                    So I agree that eternity can break into our temporal existences when we still our minds, avoid self-deception, and listen to our consciences. But I still maintain that K, as a devout Christian who did not question Christian dogma or the authority of The Bible, was living his temporal existence in the light of the judgement after his death. >>

                    SK was also a Dane who lived in the 19th Century, but what does that have to do with anything?

                    << Finally, I'm not sure your final quote from PH (Steere, p. 186) supports you view of "in eternity" being in the here and now. Isn't eternity contrasted with "the temporal order" in this passage:
                    "[T]hroughout eternity an infinite stillness reigns wherein the conscience may talk with the individual … Here in the temporal order conscience is prepared to make each person into an individual" (PH, Steere, p. 186)
                    So "in the temporal order" our conscience can do its good work – if we are prepared to let it! – but "in eternity" there is nothing but my conscience and I, indeed my conscience and I will be one. Yours, Jim Stuart >>

                    Well, it depends upon what eternity means, does it not? I shall address this and the why of the voicing SK uses in a separate response that I shall call the 1st Chunk-Chunk.  ----willy


                    --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart46" <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Dear Willy,
                    >
                    > In your post 5488 you complain that I have gone wrong in
                    > interpreting K's use of the phrase "in eternity" to refer to a time
                    > after the (physical) death of the individual.
                    >
                    > Well, I'm not sure. I agree that K does talk of the eternal breaking
                    > into time for the individual of faith, and I accept that talk of
                    > eternity may be appropriate when the single individual is alone with
                    > his conscience, but I still think that in the passages you
                    > quote, "in eternity" refers to a time after death.
                    >
                    > I don't know if you have the Hong page references for PH, so I can
                    > check the quotes in their context in my edition of PH.
                    >
                    > Let me ask you some questions about your understanding of K. First,
                    > do you think K actually believed in life after death? What you write
                    > in your post 5488 suggests a negative answer.
                    >
                    > Do you accept that a belief in life after death is traditional
                    > Christian doctrine? Do you accept that K did not question
                    > traditional Christianity doctrine?
                    >
                    > Consider this passage:
                    >
                    > "Alas, already here in temporality a collective failure is a poor
                    > comfort, and in eternity there is no collective failure?" (PH, Hong,
                    > p. 148)
                    >
                    > Do you agree that K uses the word "eternity" as implying the
                    > opposite of "temporality"?
                    >
                    > Consider this passage:
                    >
                    > "Indeed, in eternity the single individual, you, my listener, and I,
                    > will be questioned as an individual, alone by himself as an
                    > individual, and about the particulars in his life." (PH, Hong, pp.
                    > 148-9)
                    >
                    > Here is my reading of this passage: The questioning – which is said
                    > to be in the future – is to take place after K's death and the death
                    > of his listener. The person doing the questioning is to be God, and
                    > the questions are to cover all the particulars of the individual's
                    > life.
                    >
                    > Is my interpretation here really beyond the pale/pail? Arguably, we
                    > can prepare for this questioning by God after our deaths, by
                    > questioning ourselves here and now – by shutting the world out and
                    > being alone with our consciences. I accept that when I do this, it
                    > may be appropriate to say that I am in eternity.
                    >
                    > So I agree that eternity can break into our temporal existences when
                    > we still our minds, avoid self-deception, and listen to our
                    > consciences. But I still maintain that K, as a devout Christian who
                    > did not question Christian dogma or the authority of The Bible, was
                    > living his temporal existence in the light of the judgement after
                    > his death.
                    >
                    > Finally, I'm not sure your final quote from PH (Steere, p. 186)
                    > supports you view of "in eternity" being in the here and now. Isn't
                    > eternity contrasted with "the temporal order" in this passage:
                    >
                    > "[T]hroughout eternity an infinite stillness reigns wherein the
                    > conscience may talk with the individual … Here in the temporal order
                    > conscience is prepared to make each person into an individual" (PH,
                    > Steere, p. 186)
                    >
                    > So "in the temporal order" our conscience can do its good work – if
                    > we are prepared to let it! – but "in eternity" there is nothing but
                    > my conscience and I, indeed my conscience and I will be one.
                    >
                    > Yours,
                    >
                    > Jim Stuart
                    >
                  • Médéric Laitier
                    Dear Willy, Reading you is always a moment of eternal laugh! A pity it cannot last more than the due moment and that it is always needed to fall back in the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Mar 6 10:14 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Willy,

                      Reading you is always a moment of eternal laugh! A pity it cannot last more than the due moment and that it is always needed to fall back in the other world!

                      Supportive laughters, if they may help you, or even though they may not...

                      What would it mean, to help, in your position?

                      Well, help yourself...

                      From m'eddy, all laughters of all eternity

                      PS-

                      But if you take more of those, you will get...



                      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Now that JR and Bill have joined in opining against my view, the crowd having gathered in opposition to my admittedly off-the-wall writings, let me toss the following across the bright line:
                      >

                    • James Rovira
                      It s not clear what, if anything, in Willy s response to Bill was also a response to me. May want to look at some of the questions I asked, Will. Jim R
                      Message 10 of 16 , Mar 6 5:09 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        It's not clear what, if anything, in Willy's response to Bill was also a response to me.  May want to look at some of the questions I asked, Will.

                        Jim R
                      • Will Brown
                        JR, I have no idea of what response of mine you are referring to.
                        Message 11 of 16 , Mar 6 5:20 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          JR, I have no idea of what response of mine you are referring to.
                          ----willy
                        • James Rovira
                          Sorry about that, Will. I meant the post starting:
                          Message 12 of 16 , Mar 6 6:18 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Sorry about that, Will.  I meant the post starting:

                            <<Now that JR and Bill have joined in opining against my view, the crowd having gathered in opposition to my admittedly off-the-wall writings, let me toss the following across the bright line:

                            << Dear Willy, In your post 5488 you complain that I have gone wrong in interpreting K's use of the phrase "in eternity" to refer to a time after the (physical) death of the individual. >>

                            I don't recall "complaining" about anything. I did state that I do not see it as you see it; if that is a complaint in your eyes, so be it.>>

                            I'm working out of Gmail or I'd give you a post number.

                            Jim R

                            On 3/6/07, Will Brown <wilbro99@...> wrote:

                            JR, I have no idea of what response of mine you are referring to.
                            ----willy

                          • Will Brown
                            What post were your questions in? ... crowd ... let me ... in ... after ... see
                            Message 13 of 16 , Mar 6 6:34 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              What post were your questions in?

                              --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira" <jamesrovira@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Sorry about that, Will. I meant the post starting:
                              >
                              > <<Now that JR and Bill have joined in opining against my view, the
                              crowd
                              > having gathered in opposition to my admittedly off-the-wall writings,
                              let me
                              > toss the following across the bright line:
                              >
                              > << Dear Willy, In your post 5488 you complain that I have gone wrong
                              in
                              > interpreting K's use of the phrase "in eternity" to refer to a time
                              after
                              > the (physical) death of the individual. >>
                              > I don't recall "complaining" about anything. I did state that I do not
                              see
                              > it as you see it; if that is a complaint in your eyes, so be it.>>
                              >
                              > I'm working out of Gmail or I'd give you a post number.
                              >
                              > Jim R
                              >
                              > On 3/6/07, Will Brown wilbro99@... wrote:
                              > >
                              > > JR, I have no idea of what response of mine you are referring to.
                              > > ----willy
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • James Rovira
                              Kinda spread throughout my responses to you... Jim R
                              Message 14 of 16 , Mar 6 6:36 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Kinda spread throughout my responses to you...

                                Jim R

                                On 3/6/07, Will Brown <wilbro99@...> wrote:

                                What post were your questions in?

                              • jimstuart46
                                Dear Willy, I have been looking back over the 1st Chunk thread and I see I did not respond to one of your questions. Here is the section from your post 5488:
                                Message 15 of 16 , Mar 7 12:14 PM
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  Dear Willy,

                                  I have been looking back over the "1st Chunk" thread and I see I did not respond to one of your questions. Here is the section from your post 5488:

                                  << [A]nything we can do that furthers the self-understanding necessary to understand what SK means by self-understanding is the least we can do. Here are two quotes on that subject. As I take it he is saying something about a confluence of some sort between self-knowing and being who we are. If you ask me what I think they mean, give me your reading first so I can respond to what you have said and save some time here.

                                  "The only fundamental basis for understanding is that one understands only in proportion to becoming himself that which he understands." (Papers, V B 40)

                                  "If a person does not become what he can understand, then he does not really understand it." (P&J, Hannay, p. 212) (46 VII I A 72)  >>

                                  I read K as saying that we can only understand those modes of existence which we have actualized. We cannot understand unactualized possibilities. So, for example, the ethical individual can understand both the aesthetic mode of existence (because he has been there) and the ethical mode of existence (because he is there at the moment), but he cannot understand the religious mode of existence (because he has not himself actualized that possibility).

                                  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:

                                  "But in eternity, conscience is the only voice that is heard. It must be heard by the individual, for the individual has become the eternal echo of this voice. It must be heard. There is no place to flee from it. For in the infinite there is no place, the individual is himself the place." (PH, Steere, p. 186)

                                  "Eternity does not ask concerning how far you brought up your children in the way that you saw others do it. It simply asks you as an individual, how you brought up your children. It does not talk with you in the manner that you would talk with a friend in confidence. For alas, even this confidence can all too easily accustom you to evasions. For even the most trustworthy friend still speaks as a third person. And by much of such confidence, one easily gets used to speaking of himself as if he were a third person. But in eternity, you are the individual, and conscience when it talks to you is no third person, any more than you are a third person when you talk with conscience. For you and conscience are one." (Ibid., pp. 188-89)

                                  "In eternity there are chambers enough so that each may be placed alone in one. For wherever conscience is present, and it is and shall be present in each person, there exists in eternity a lonely prison, or the blessed chamber of salvation. On that account this consciousness of being an individual is the primary consciousness in a man, which is his eternal consciousness." (Ibid., p. 193)

                                  I look forward to any further chunks you may produce in response to my post 5474.

                                  Yours,

                                  Jim Stuart

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