Re: [Kierkegaardian] Re: Appropriation-s
- 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
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.