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

Re: [Kierkegaardian] Re: Appropriation-s

Expand Messages
  • Médéric Laitier
    Hello Rick, I haven t read the books for if I had, I would have understood of which books it was a question, I suppose -- unless you tricked me once more (you
    Message 1 of 3 , May 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Rick,

      I haven't read the books for if I had, I would have understood of which
      books it was a question, I suppose -- unless you tricked me once more (you
      have me considering this possibility for naturally I would not).

      Home is the answer to your next question. Quite an answer, this one? More
      scientifically: N49° 21', E4° 12' (minutes are approximate values from
      possibly erroneous calculations...)

      'No, no, don't step aside. Your dear appropriation only is dear when
      you reflect upon it as dear.'

      Well, your trick here is, in my vantage (which bears much an ad- for me...)
      half-true: indeed, and stupid as it may sound thus reformulated: something
      is dear to me only if it is dear to me. Now, my concern is: if it is as you
      have stated, why isn't everything dear to me? Indeed, I just have to
      reflect upon it as dear and, *pouf! It has become so to me. Doesn't seem to
      be working this way for me though, is it for you ?

      If so then I would guess you ignore nostalgia. For I assume that when the
      thing which was dear no longer is, then you only have to reflect upon it as
      undear and, *hop! it's undear. Practical indeed!

      Finally, you earlier wrote:

      'What I am saying is that there is an appropriated reflection
      present in your view that is the same as the misappropriated view of
      the aesthetic.'

      I am not sure whether I understand correctly this sentence in its context.
      My uncertainty is not residing in your overall point that I must unclothe my
      appropriation to understand your point, rather as to the meaning of 'the
      misappropriated view of the aesthetic'. Do you mean by the latter phrase:

      a) the view of the aesthetic which is essentially misappropriated ~
      essentially unfit, immoral and alike
      b) a consideration over the aesthetic (i.e. the category) which is
      inappropriate ~ unfit, for out of the category of aesthetic
      c) Something else I completely missed

      If b), I get your point and it is what I meant when answering I accepted
      your point, otherwise I can't see what you mean so I'll need further
      enlightments on the similarities you sensed between 'an appropriated
      reflection present in' my 'view' and this 'misappropriated view of the

      Well, I thought this one should be a shorter one. Still pretty long once
      more, however... How deceiving anticipation may be! Fortunately I just have
      to reflect upon it as short for it to turn short... REALLY practical your

      Chippy, doopy, woopy, guppy,dooky, hooky!

      Again, Anew, Aback, Aforth,
      Mederic, Obscurely Open ~ Moody? No, why?

      *Pouf! and hop! are french onomatopeias describing spontaneous or immediate
      happenings accompanied by light explosion sounds, usually under friendly
      supernatural or magical circumstances. The sound 'ou' is close to the
      english 'oo' of footbal though eventually bearing towards that of food. The
      'o' of hop! is the classical french open 'o' very close to the british
      english 'o' of 'got'. The aspiration of the 'h' being according to the
      liking of the issuer.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.