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

Re: SK Quotes

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    See your site and raise you to the real skinny! It s a very good read for all who love the mountains!! ~~~~william_do_tell
    Message 1 of 25 , Jul 25, 2007

      See your site and raise you to the real skinny! It's a very good read for all who love the mountains!!   ~~~~william_do_tell

       

      http://kathleeninthewoods.com/sitwsynopsis.htm


      --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "KTP" <nnn88388@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" wilbro99@
      > wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "KTP" nnn88388@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" wilbro99@
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Hah! Now, where did I put that back door? Durn, got a candle? I
      > was
      > > > > thinking of the bridge as the place one must be to get to
      > > > Religiousness
      > > > > A, and the place that one must return to before they can jump off
      > it
      > > > > into Religiousness B. See? Gotta get over the river before you can
      > > > leap
      > > > > off the bridge. Great fun! ~~ [:-&] ~~ Pontikos
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > Willy,
      > > >
      > > > When you made your leap off the bridge, did you land into the Sea of
      > > > Tranquility or into Humboldt Bay?
      > > >
      > > > Hesychios(TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER)
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > Not that it makes a difference, but here is what I had in mind.
      > >
      > > "In A, existing, my existence, is an element within my eternal
      > > consciousness (please note, the element that is, not the element that
      > is
      > > past, because the latter is a volatilizing by speculative thought),
      > > consequently a lesser thing that hinders me in being infinitely higher
      > > than I am. Conversely, in B, existing, even though lower by being
      > > paradoxically accentuated, is nevertheless so much higher that I first
      > > become eternal in existence, and as a result existing by itself gives
      > > rise to a qualification that is infinitely higher than existing."
      > (CUP,
      > > Hong, p. 573; Lowrie, p. 508)
      > > I hereby dissolve both the consortium and the order of the bear. I
      > just
      > > read a little book "How to Shit in the Woods," and how better to bury
      > > the dead?
      > >
      > > William Imposter Brown, Esq.
      > >
      > http://www.mapi.com/en/newsletters/better_elimination.html
      > <http://www.mapi.com/en/newsletters/better_elimination.html>
      >
    • Bill
      ... Willy, If you are within a room, then there has to be some distinction between the room and the inside of the room. I m not sure how that worked-out for
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 25, 2007
        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "KTP" <nnn88388@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        Willy, If you are within a room, then there has to be some
        distinction between the room and the inside of the room. I'm not
        sure how that worked-out for you, but it is a great metaphor, because
        in my experience I asked what type of message am I trying to send
        whether or not it is a room that I'm inside.

        The only 'message' we can send is to begin with the Word. Instead of
        trying to figure-out your metaphor one just laughs at the absurdity
        of knowing what one is trying to describe, and then one starts
        wondering what message one would want to send. This is how one gets
        out of the ethical; with laughter. Only when we are looking to send
        a message does one find one, or so it seemed.

        Suddenly one in a glance sees the message one had been looking for.
        It is the message that is totally different from ourselves, but also
        as Kierkegaard describes as identical with ourselves. This is what
        he describes as the "absolute paradox". Bill
        > >
        > > Nickle, thanks for the correction. I was doing it from memory and
        I
        > had
        > > it pronounced wrong in me noggin. When I was forced to memorize
        that
        > > first canto, way back in the dark ages of high school, it
        was 'lone
        > > Glenartney's hazel shade." Has it changed?
        > >
        > > King James of Scotland is what sparked off the memory. It's a good
        > thing
        > > JR is open to a bit of humorous needling, else the Tower of
        London for
        > > me. We were wondering through that place about a month ago.
        > >
        > > Ok, Kierkegaard. Here is my question. If we think of the self in
        its
        > > totality as a chamber we occupy, where, being in that room makes
        us
        > what
        > > we think we are, regardless of what we think we are, whether
        nothing,
        > or
        > > everything, or any complex mixture between, and we suddenly find
        > > ourselves outside that room, not in a physical sense, as if
        standing
        > > outside ourselves, but because that room was imagined, as
        revealed by
        > > finding ourselves outside that room, would you say that a new
        category
        > > of self would open up for thinking about? Further, would you say
        that
        > > thinking about this new category of self would require comparing
        it to
        > > the prior category of self?
        > >
        > > Yep, I turned our prior image inside out; no back door. ~~~~willy
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > PS: Oh yes, a story, well, I am working on one; something about
        two on
        > > a bridge.
        > >
        >
        > You're a tough one Willy,
        >
        > No back door, Hah!
        >
        > No Exit! Willy, that's just a dream. There's always an exit. Take my
        > woodchuck as an example; always has two ways in and out. The front
        door
        > only opens in and there's no handle. The back door has a handle but
        you
        > have to push out. The trick is to find the back door.
        >
        > I found it!
        >
        > But I'm a Fakir from zbn!
        >
        > P.S. Some day I'll meet you on the bridge.
        >
        > KTP
        >
      • Bill
        ... wrote: Jim R., Where are you reading this interesting description? Also, if it matters, Blake never thought one could discover what was
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 25, 2007
          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
          <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
          Jim R., Where are you reading this interesting description?

          Also, if it matters, Blake never thought one could discover what was
          natural. If I'm not mistaken everything was a "vision". I think this
          is not what Kierkegaard had in mind. Kierkegaard did believe that we
          would want to return to the finite world and find what ever eternity
          might be there. Bill
          > See, Will, right now I'm trying to use Kierkegaard to read Blake.
          Blake's
          > mythology describes the fall of man in terms of a the mind becoming
          enclosed
          > in a "cavern" whose only outlets are the five senses, and in the
          process,
          > cut off from the sight of eternity. I don't think it's a
          coincidence that
          > you use a similar metaphor to describe K's idea of (a certain kind
          of) the
          > self -- I think they had many similar ideas.
          >
          > Blake just expressed them differently. VERY differently.
          >
          > Jim
          >
          > On 7/24/07, Will Brown <wilbro99@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Nickle, thanks for the correction. I was doing it from memory
          and I had
          > > it pronounced wrong in me noggin. When I was forced to memorize
          that
          > > first canto, way back in the dark ages of high school, it
          was 'lone
          > > Glenartney's hazel shade." Has it changed?
          > >
          > > King James of Scotland is what sparked off the memory. It's a
          good thing
          > > JR is open to a bit of humorous needling, else the Tower of
          London for me.
          > > We were wondering through that place about a month ago.
          > >
          > > Ok, Kierkegaard. Here is my question. If we think of the self in
          its
          > > totality as a chamber we occupy, where, being in that room makes
          us what we
          > > think we are, regardless of what we think we are, whether
          nothing, or
          > > everything, or any complex mixture between, and we suddenly find
          ourselves
          > > outside that room, not in a physical sense, as if standing outside
          > > ourselves, but because that room was imagined, as revealed by
          finding
          > > ourselves outside that room, would you say that a new category of
          self would
          > > open up for thinking about? Further, would you say that thinking
          about this
          > > new category of self would require comparing it to the prior
          category of
          > > self?
          > >
          > > Yep, I turned our prior image inside out; no back door.
          ~~~~*willy*
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > PS: Oh yes, a story, well, I am working on one; something about
          two on a
          > > bridge.
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Will Brown
          Bill, I have set aside any attempt to communicate with you until I can figure out how to do so. I left that other group because I was dead in the water with
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 25, 2007

            Bill, I have set aside any attempt to communicate with you until I can figure out how to do so. I left that other group because I was dead in the water with both Don and yourself, which left no one to communicate with. Meddy is off doing politics and looking to become president of the EU some day. Who knows, he may make it.

            I had written a very long response to your last post, but deep-sixed it as more of the same; it's gone to the recycle bin and beyond. I think what you have said in the following sentence illustrates our disconnect: "Willy, If you are within a room, then there has to be some distinction between the room and the inside of the room."

            You see, what I said to Nickle was cast in terms of the self being the room. Not that I needed to, but I clued him in with my 'back door' remark. As such, there was no distinction between the occupant and the occupied. That you see what I said as otherwise is probably our difficulty, I will repeat what I had said []:

             

            "Ok, Kierkegaard. Here is my question. If we think of the self in its totality as a chamber we occupy, where, being in that room makes us what we think we are, regardless of what we think we are, whether nothing, or everything, or any complex mixture between, and we suddenly find ourselves outside that room, not in a physical sense, as if standing outside ourselves, but because that room was imagined, as revealed by finding ourselves outside that room, would you say that a new category of self would open up for thinking about? Further, would you say that thinking about this new category of self would require comparing it to the prior category of self?

            Yep, I turned our prior image inside out; no back door.  ~~~~willy"


            --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <billybob98103@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "KTP" nnn88388@ wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > Willy, If you are within a room, then there has to be some
            > distinction between the room and the inside of the room. I'm not
            > sure how that worked-out for you, but it is a great metaphor, because
            > in my experience I asked what type of message am I trying to send
            > whether or not it is a room that I'm inside.
            >
            > The only 'message' we can send is to begin with the Word. Instead of
            > trying to figure-out your metaphor one just laughs at the absurdity
            > of knowing what one is trying to describe, and then one starts
            > wondering what message one would want to send. This is how one gets
            > out of the ethical; with laughter. Only when we are looking to send
            > a message does one find one, or so it seemed.
            >
            > Suddenly one in a glance sees the message one had been looking for.
            > It is the message that is totally different from ourselves, but also
            > as Kierkegaard describes as identical with ourselves. This is what
            > he describes as the "absolute paradox". Bill
            > > >
            > > > Nickle, thanks for the correction. I was doing it from memory and
            > I
            > > had
            > > > it pronounced wrong in me noggin. When I was forced to memorize
            > that
            > > > first canto, way back in the dark ages of high school, it
            > was 'lone
            > > > Glenartney's hazel shade." Has it changed?
            > > >
            > > > King James of Scotland is what sparked off the memory. It's a good
            > > thing
            > > > JR is open to a bit of humorous needling, else the Tower of
            > London for
            > > > me. We were wondering through that place about a month ago.
            > > >
            > > > Ok, Kierkegaard. Here is my question. If we think of the self in
            > its
            > > > totality as a chamber we occupy, where, being in that room makes
            > us
            > > what
            > > > we think we are, regardless of what we think we are, whether
            > nothing,
            > > or
            > > > everything, or any complex mixture between, and we suddenly find
            > > > ourselves outside that room, not in a physical sense, as if
            > standing
            > > > outside ourselves, but because that room was imagined, as
            > revealed by
            > > > finding ourselves outside that room, would you say that a new
            > category
            > > > of self would open up for thinking about? Further, would you say
            > that
            > > > thinking about this new category of self would require comparing
            > it to
            > > > the prior category of self?
            > > >
            > > > Yep, I turned our prior image inside out; no back door. ~~~~willy
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > PS: Oh yes, a story, well, I am working on one; something about
            > two on
            > > > a bridge.
            > > >
            > >
            > > You're a tough one Willy,
            > >
            > > No back door, Hah!
            > >
            > > No Exit! Willy, that's just a dream. There's always an exit. Take my
            > > woodchuck as an example; always has two ways in and out. The front
            > door
            > > only opens in and there's no handle. The back door has a handle but
            > you
            > > have to push out. The trick is to find the back door.
            > >
            > > I found it!
            > >
            > > But I'm a Fakir from zbn!
            > >
            > > P.S. Some day I'll meet you on the bridge.
            > >
            > > KTP
            > >
            >
          • James Rovira
            Bill -- the mind as cavern is in a few places in Blake. Ehm....All Religions are One and There is No Natural Religion (1 and 2); The Marriage of Heaven and
            Message 5 of 25 , Jul 25, 2007
              Bill -- the mind as cavern is in a few places in Blake.  Ehm....All Religions are One and There is No Natural Religion (1 and 2); The Marriage of Heaven and Hell; some of the prophetic books from the 1790s (The Song of Los, I think -- not the one with Asia and Africa, but the other one), etc. 

              I agree with your reading of Blake and nature, though.  That's the whole point of "There is No Natural Religion" -- nature by itself can't give you anything.  It entraps you.  The mind does then become a cavern.  Through vision or imagination we "see through" nature to the realities to which it points -- infinity in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour.

              I don't think this is contrary to Kierkegaard's perspective, though.  I think it's a very poetic description of Religiousness A.  I think there are elements of Blake consistent with a Religiousness B perspective too, but I don't see that as clearly yet.

              I think Willy's metaphor of "being in the room" is consistent with K's thought as well -- we are simultaneously the room and in the room.  Another metaphor Willy used before is the self being something we grasp -- it is both the act of grasping and and the thing being grasped.  Our self consists simultaneously of our self-conception and the thing doing the act of conceiving.  In terms of the opening pages of the Sickness Unto Death and some parts of Concept of Anxiety, the self consists of different elements (body, mind or soul, and spirit -- psychical, physical, and pneumatic), of the relationship those elements have to each other, and of the spirit's perception of and intervention in the relation of those elements (the self to self relation), and then finally the self's relation to that which is the ground of existence of the self (God).    I think the only way to talk about this is through metaphor or through extremely abstract language. 

              Jim R
            • Bill
              ... Willy, I enjoy your replies. I learn a lot. Unfortunately, I learn to disagree with you. I don t mean to rain on your parade. There are a few
              Message 6 of 25 , Jul 26, 2007
                --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...>
                wrote:
                >
                Willy, I enjoy your replies. I learn a lot. Unfortunately, I learn
                to disagree with you. I don't mean to rain on your parade. There
                are a few principles from philosophers that interest me, and they
                help me to set my own experiences in perspective with those
                experiences like your own that seem to assume too much. I was just
                seven when I had my "cave" experience, though it didn't feel like it
                at the time.

                Kant writes that we just don't find concepts in our mind ready to
                describe experiences like being in a cave. Nothing came to mind to
                explain the experience except the absudity of needing to reflect on
                it whether or not it in retrospect appeared like being in a cave.
                This is how Plato conceived his experience before he claimed to have
                seen the "light". But, if we are already "there", what is the need
                to conceive "where", unless we want to find an experience to confirm
                what we already ought to know; or that we are already "there"?

                Plato felt comfortable in his cave, and like Socrates thought he
                might be able to communicate the experience to others. However, it
                is Kierkegaard who realises that the experince of how one understands
                the transition to Religiousness B cannot be taught. If one does see
                from within a cave, as did Plato, it is absurd that this need to be
                pointed-out. One is already "there". But, it is this being-there
                that needs to find an experience one can recognize as one's own.
                This experience of what it means to have a self requires that we
                already know what to look for, and therefore if we seek ourselves
                from within this darkness we will find ourselves, because we are only
                deceiving ourselves to believe all knowledge is to be distrusted.
                The knowledge of being-there, and indifferent to this knowledge, is
                the basis of our freedom. To understand this freedom requires a
                change in ourselves to hear the "silence" by which this freedom is to
                be understood. Nothing prepares us for the "silence" that seems to
                affirm it. The "silence" is what I've described as the
                Word, or the beginning of time as it can also be described. Bill



                > Bill, I have set aside any attempt to communicate with you until I
                can
                > figure out how to do so. I left that other group because I was dead
                in
                > the water with both Don and yourself, which left no one to
                communicate
                > with. Meddy is off doing politics and looking to become president
                of the
                > EU some day. Who knows, he may make it.
                >
                > I had written a very long response to your last post, but deep-
                sixed it
                > as more of the same; it's gone to the recycle bin and beyond. I
                think
                > what you have said in the following sentence illustrates our
                disconnect:
                > "Willy, If you are within a room, then there has to be some
                distinction
                > between the room and the inside of the room."
                >
                > You see, what I said to Nickle was cast in terms of the self being
                the
                > room. Not that I needed to, but I clued him in with my 'back door'
                > remark. As such, there was no distinction between the occupant and
                the
                > occupied. That you see what I said as otherwise is probably our
                > difficulty, I will repeat what I had said []:
                >
                >
                >
                > "Ok, Kierkegaard. Here is my question. If we think of the self in
                its
                > totality as a chamber we occupy, where, being in that room makes us
                what
                > we think we are, regardless of what we think we are, whether
                nothing, or
                > everything, or any complex mixture between, and we suddenly find
                > ourselves outside that room, not in a physical sense, as if standing
                > outside ourselves, but because that room was imagined, as revealed
                by
                > finding ourselves outside that room, would you say that a new
                category
                > of self would open up for thinking about? Further, would you say
                that
                > thinking about this new category of self would require comparing it
                to
                > the prior category of self?
                >
                > Yep, I turned our prior image inside out; no back door. ~~~~willy"
                >
                > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <billybob98103@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "KTP" nnn88388@ wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > Willy, If you are within a room, then there has to be some
                > > distinction between the room and the inside of the room. I'm not
                > > sure how that worked-out for you, but it is a great metaphor,
                because
                > > in my experience I asked what type of message am I trying to send
                > > whether or not it is a room that I'm inside.
                > >
                > > The only 'message' we can send is to begin with the Word. Instead
                of
                > > trying to figure-out your metaphor one just laughs at the
                absurdity
                > > of knowing what one is trying to describe, and then one starts
                > > wondering what message one would want to send. This is how one
                gets
                > > out of the ethical; with laughter. Only when we are looking to
                send
                > > a message does one find one, or so it seemed.
                > >
                > > Suddenly one in a glance sees the message one had been looking
                for.
                > > It is the message that is totally different from ourselves, but
                also
                > > as Kierkegaard describes as identical with ourselves. This is
                what
                > > he describes as the "absolute paradox". Bill
                > > > >
                > > > > Nickle, thanks for the correction. I was doing it from memory
                and
                > > I
                > > > had
                > > > > it pronounced wrong in me noggin. When I was forced to
                memorize
                > > that
                > > > > first canto, way back in the dark ages of high school, it
                > > was 'lone
                > > > > Glenartney's hazel shade." Has it changed?
                > > > >
                > > > > King James of Scotland is what sparked off the memory. It's a
                good
                > > > thing
                > > > > JR is open to a bit of humorous needling, else the Tower of
                > > London for
                > > > > me. We were wondering through that place about a month ago.
                > > > >
                > > > > Ok, Kierkegaard. Here is my question. If we think of the self
                in
                > > its
                > > > > totality as a chamber we occupy, where, being in that room
                makes
                > > us
                > > > what
                > > > > we think we are, regardless of what we think we are, whether
                > > nothing,
                > > > or
                > > > > everything, or any complex mixture between, and we suddenly
                find
                > > > > ourselves outside that room, not in a physical sense, as if
                > > standing
                > > > > outside ourselves, but because that room was imagined, as
                > > revealed by
                > > > > finding ourselves outside that room, would you say that a new
                > > category
                > > > > of self would open up for thinking about? Further, would you
                say
                > > that
                > > > > thinking about this new category of self would require
                comparing
                > > it to
                > > > > the prior category of self?
                > > > >
                > > > > Yep, I turned our prior image inside out; no back door.
                ~~~~willy
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > PS: Oh yes, a story, well, I am working on one; something
                about
                > > two on
                > > > > a bridge.
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > > You're a tough one Willy,
                > > >
                > > > No back door, Hah!
                > > >
                > > > No Exit! Willy, that's just a dream. There's always an exit.
                Take my
                > > > woodchuck as an example; always has two ways in and out. The
                front
                > > door
                > > > only opens in and there's no handle. The back door has a handle
                but
                > > you
                > > > have to push out. The trick is to find the back door.
                > > >
                > > > I found it!
                > > >
                > > > But I'm a Fakir from zbn!
                > > >
                > > > P.S. Some day I'll meet you on the bridge.
                > > >
                > > > KTP
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • Bill
                ... wrote: Jim R., Thanks for such a clear explination of your point of view. I would reply that there is rather something always hidden in
                Message 7 of 25 , Jul 26, 2007
                  --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
                  <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                  Jim R., Thanks for such a clear explination of your point of view.

                  I would reply that there is rather something always hidden in what we
                  perceive. Schelling would argue that only an artist is able to
                  capture in his art what is really there. I don't believe Blake
                  thought of himself as an artist, but as a visionary. I don't mean to
                  cut hairs here.

                  Is not Kierekegaard closer to Schelling than to Blake? Is not the
                  aim for Kierkegaard to do the Good, and if the Good can only happen
                  in the time of the Good, then does not our understanding of the Good
                  as conceal something hidden?

                  As to this business of being in a room, I replied to Willy that it
                  seems absurd to point out to oneself what we ought to already know or
                  that that we are already-there whether it seems to me in a room, a
                  car or in the world. To understand our ground does not require
                  representation, unless we are afraid to trust ourselves. Darkness is
                  the product of not trusting ourselves, and seeing a light as Plato
                  described is something that need not be taught if we follow
                  Kierkegaard and Relilgious B. Bill

                  > Bill -- the mind as cavern is in a few places in Blake. Ehm....All
                  > Religions are One and There is No Natural Religion (1 and 2); The
                  Marriage
                  > of Heaven and Hell; some of the prophetic books from the 1790s (The
                  Song of
                  > Los, I think -- not the one with Asia and Africa, but the other
                  one), etc.
                  >
                  > I agree with your reading of Blake and nature, though. That's the
                  whole
                  > point of "There is No Natural Religion" -- nature by itself can't
                  give you
                  > anything. It entraps you. The mind does then become a cavern.
                  Through
                  > vision or imagination we "see through" nature to the realities to
                  which it
                  > points -- infinity in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour.
                  >
                  > I don't think this is contrary to Kierkegaard's perspective,
                  though. I
                  > think it's a very poetic description of Religiousness A. I think
                  there are
                  > elements of Blake consistent with a Religiousness B perspective
                  too, but I
                  > don't see that as clearly yet.
                  >
                  > I think Willy's metaphor of "being in the room" is consistent with
                  K's
                  > thought as well -- we are simultaneously the room and in the room.
                  Another
                  > metaphor Willy used before is the self being something we grasp --
                  it is
                  > both the act of grasping and and the thing being grasped. Our self
                  consists
                  > simultaneously of our self-conception and the thing doing the act of
                  > conceiving. In terms of the opening pages of the Sickness Unto
                  Death and
                  > some parts of Concept of Anxiety, the self consists of different
                  elements
                  > (body, mind or soul, and spirit -- psychical, physical, and
                  pneumatic), of
                  > the relationship those elements have to each other, and of the
                  spirit's
                  > perception of and intervention in the relation of those elements
                  (the self
                  > to self relation), and then finally the self's relation to that
                  which is the
                  > ground of existence of the self (God). I think the only way to
                  talk about
                  > this is through metaphor or through extremely abstract language.
                  >
                  > Jim R
                  >
                • Will Brown
                  From Concept of Anxiety, Fn, p. 21: *Schelling [note 51] called attention to this Aristototelian term in support of his own distinction between negative and
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jul 26, 2007

                    From Concept of Anxiety, Fn, p. 21:  "*Schelling [note 51] called attention to this Aristototelian term in support of his own distinction between negative and positive philosophy. By negative philosophy he meant 'logic'; that was clear enough. On the other hand, it was less clear to me what he really meant by positive philosophy, except insofar as it became evident that it was the philosophy that he himself wished to provide. However, since I have nothing to go by except my own opinion, it is not feasible to pursue this subject further."

                    Note 51: "… By February he was through with Schelling and wrote to his friend Emil Boesen in Copenhagen, 'Schelling talks endless nonsense both in an extensive and an intensive sense (Letters, KW XXV Letter 69)."

                    ~~~~

                    --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <billybob98103@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
                    > jamesrovira@ wrote:
                    > Jim R., Thanks for such a clear explination of your point of view.
                    >
                    > I would reply that there is rather something always hidden in what we
                    > perceive. Schelling would argue that only an artist is able to
                    > capture in his art what is really there. I don't believe Blake
                    > thought of himself as an artist, but as a visionary. I don't mean to
                    > cut hairs here.
                    >
                    > Is not Kierekegaard closer to Schelling than to Blake? Is not the
                    > aim for Kierkegaard to do the Good, and if the Good can only happen
                    > in the time of the Good, then does not our understanding of the Good
                    > as conceal something hidden?
                    >
                    > As to this business of being in a room, I replied to Willy that it
                    > seems absurd to point out to oneself what we ought to already know or
                    > that that we are already-there whether it seems to me in a room, a
                    > car or in the world. To understand our ground does not require
                    > representation, unless we are afraid to trust ourselves. Darkness is
                    > the product of not trusting ourselves, and seeing a light as Plato
                    > described is something that need not be taught if we follow
                    > Kierkegaard and Relilgious B. Bill
                    >
                    > > Bill -- the mind as cavern is in a few places in Blake. Ehm....All
                    > > Religions are One and There is No Natural Religion (1 and 2); The
                    > Marriage
                    > > of Heaven and Hell; some of the prophetic books from the 1790s (The
                    > Song of
                    > > Los, I think -- not the one with Asia and Africa, but the other
                    > one), etc.
                    > >
                    > > I agree with your reading of Blake and nature, though. That's the
                    > whole
                    > > point of "There is No Natural Religion" -- nature by itself can't
                    > give you
                    > > anything. It entraps you. The mind does then become a cavern.
                    > Through
                    > > vision or imagination we "see through" nature to the realities to
                    > which it
                    > > points -- infinity in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour.
                    > >
                    > > I don't think this is contrary to Kierkegaard's perspective,
                    > though. I
                    > > think it's a very poetic description of Religiousness A. I think
                    > there are
                    > > elements of Blake consistent with a Religiousness B perspective
                    > too, but I
                    > > don't see that as clearly yet.
                    > >
                    > > I think Willy's metaphor of "being in the room" is consistent with
                    > K's
                    > > thought as well -- we are simultaneously the room and in the room.
                    > Another
                    > > metaphor Willy used before is the self being something we grasp --
                    > it is
                    > > both the act of grasping and and the thing being grasped. Our self
                    > consists
                    > > simultaneously of our self-conception and the thing doing the act of
                    > > conceiving. In terms of the opening pages of the Sickness Unto
                    > Death and
                    > > some parts of Concept of Anxiety, the self consists of different
                    > elements
                    > > (body, mind or soul, and spirit -- psychical, physical, and
                    > pneumatic), of
                    > > the relationship those elements have to each other, and of the
                    > spirit's
                    > > perception of and intervention in the relation of those elements
                    > (the self
                    > > to self relation), and then finally the self's relation to that
                    > which is the
                    > > ground of existence of the self (God). I think the only way to
                    > talk about
                    > > this is through metaphor or through extremely abstract language.
                    > >
                    > > Jim R
                    > >
                    >
                  • James Rovira
                    Bill -- Will s quotes are accurate...K did get seriously annoyed with Schelling at one point and gave up on him for good. But that doesn t mean there weren t
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jul 26, 2007
                      Bill -- Will's quotes are accurate...K did get seriously annoyed with Schelling at one point and gave up on him for good.  But that doesn't mean there weren't some things that stuck.  I think he got the idea of the aesthetic sphere of existence, and some kind of three stage growth, from Schelling, who I think based his philosophy on trinitarian models. 

                      I haven't worked it all out yet, but both K and Blake emphasize the importance of the imagination, create characters that represent ideal psychological states or personality types, and have these characters interact in ways that require readers to make self-defining choices while reading, and by doing so grow.  This doesn't mean there aren't serious differences as well.  I would expect to find that as well.  Just haven't worked it out yet.

                      Jim R
                    • Will Brown
                      Yep, Bill, your response exemplifies our difficulty; nowhere do you address my last point; namely, that you have misunderstood what I was saying, responding
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jul 27, 2007

                        Yep, Bill, your response exemplifies our difficulty; nowhere do you address my last point; namely, that you have misunderstood what I was saying, responding not to what I had said, but to what you think I had said. The metaphor of the room has no occupant, the occupant being the room, and your response is to an occupant in a room. That difference is what I see as the exemplifying our absolute divide.

                        Your first response missed the point and this, your next response, still misses the point even after I pointed it out in response to your first response. In a word, I see nothing that tells me you understand the metaphor. Until such time that you do, I will keep reminding you of that lack. You see, it does no good to argue over a point if you don't get it. Of course, that works both ways. I will admit up front that your view is opaque to me; I don't even see enough of it to say whether you are right or wrong. The only difference between us I can speak to is the absolute difference in the way we interpret Kierkegaard.

                        If I were to speculate on the why of that difference, I would say that if repetition is the movement from the immediate to the eternal, then your experience, coming at seven years of age, came before you had really acquired the esthetic sphere, which means that the transition from the esthetic to the ethical would be meaningless to you. Considering the developmental process of the child, where abstract reasoning does not kick in until about eleven years of age, when did you begin to reflect upon your experience and what is the process of the ripening of the understanding of your experience; your not having the abstract tools to understand it at age seven?  ~~~~willy


                        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <billybob98103@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" wilbro99@
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > Willy, I enjoy your replies. I learn a lot. Unfortunately, I learn
                        > to disagree with you. I don't mean to rain on your parade. There
                        > are a few principles from philosophers that interest me, and they
                        > help me to set my own experiences in perspective with those
                        > experiences like your own that seem to assume too much. I was just
                        > seven when I had my "cave" experience, though it didn't feel like it
                        > at the time.
                        >
                        > Kant writes that we just don't find concepts in our mind ready to
                        > describe experiences like being in a cave. Nothing came to mind to
                        > explain the experience except the absudity of needing to reflect on
                        > it whether or not it in retrospect appeared like being in a cave.
                        > This is how Plato conceived his experience before he claimed to have
                        > seen the "light". But, if we are already "there", what is the need
                        > to conceive "where", unless we want to find an experience to confirm
                        > what we already ought to know; or that we are already "there"?
                        >
                        > Plato felt comfortable in his cave, and like Socrates thought he
                        > might be able to communicate the experience to others. However, it
                        > is Kierkegaard who realises that the experince of how one understands
                        > the transition to Religiousness B cannot be taught. If one does see
                        > from within a cave, as did Plato, it is absurd that this need to be
                        > pointed-out. One is already "there". But, it is this being-there
                        > that needs to find an experience one can recognize as one's own.
                        > This experience of what it means to have a self requires that we
                        > already know what to look for, and therefore if we seek ourselves
                        > from within this darkness we will find ourselves, because we are only
                        > deceiving ourselves to believe all knowledge is to be distrusted.
                        > The knowledge of being-there, and indifferent to this knowledge, is
                        > the basis of our freedom. To understand this freedom requires a
                        > change in ourselves to hear the "silence" by which this freedom is to
                        > be understood. Nothing prepares us for the "silence" that seems to
                        > affirm it. The "silence" is what I've described as the
                        > Word, or the beginning of time as it can also be described. Bill
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > > Bill, I have set aside any attempt to communicate with you until I
                        > can
                        > > figure out how to do so. I left that other group because I was dead
                        > in
                        > > the water with both Don and yourself, which left no one to
                        > communicate
                        > > with. Meddy is off doing politics and looking to become president
                        > of the
                        > > EU some day. Who knows, he may make it.
                        > >
                        > > I had written a very long response to your last post, but deep-
                        > sixed it
                        > > as more of the same; it's gone to the recycle bin and beyond. I
                        > think
                        > > what you have said in the following sentence illustrates our
                        > disconnect:
                        > > "Willy, If you are within a room, then there has to be some
                        > distinction
                        > > between the room and the inside of the room."
                        > >
                        > > You see, what I said to Nickle was cast in terms of the self being
                        > the
                        > > room. Not that I needed to, but I clued him in with my 'back door'
                        > > remark. As such, there was no distinction between the occupant and
                        > the
                        > > occupied. That you see what I said as otherwise is probably our
                        > > difficulty, I will repeat what I had said []:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > "Ok, Kierkegaard. Here is my question. If we think of the self in
                        > its
                        > > totality as a chamber we occupy, where, being in that room makes us
                        > what
                        > > we think we are, regardless of what we think we are, whether
                        > nothing, or
                        > > everything, or any complex mixture between, and we suddenly find
                        > > ourselves outside that room, not in a physical sense, as if standing
                        > > outside ourselves, but because that room was imagined, as revealed
                        > by
                        > > finding ourselves outside that room, would you say that a new
                        > category
                        > > of self would open up for thinking about? Further, would you say
                        > that
                        > > thinking about this new category of self would require comparing it
                        > to
                        > > the prior category of self?
                        > >
                        > > Yep, I turned our prior image inside out; no back door. ~~~~willy"
                        > >
                        > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <billybob98103@>
                        > > wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "KTP" nnn88388@ wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > Willy, If you are within a room, then there has to be some
                        > > > distinction between the room and the inside of the room. I'm not
                        > > > sure how that worked-out for you, but it is a great metaphor,
                        > because
                        > > > in my experience I asked what type of message am I trying to send
                        > > > whether or not it is a room that I'm inside.
                        > > >
                        > > > The only 'message' we can send is to begin with the Word. Instead
                        > of
                        > > > trying to figure-out your metaphor one just laughs at the
                        > absurdity
                        > > > of knowing what one is trying to describe, and then one starts
                        > > > wondering what message one would want to send. This is how one
                        > gets
                        > > > out of the ethical; with laughter. Only when we are looking to
                        > send
                        > > > a message does one find one, or so it seemed.
                        > > >
                        > > > Suddenly one in a glance sees the message one had been looking
                        > for.
                        > > > It is the message that is totally different from ourselves, but
                        > also
                        > > > as Kierkegaard describes as identical with ourselves. This is
                        > what
                        > > > he describes as the "absolute paradox". Bill
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Nickle, thanks for the correction. I was doing it from memory
                        > and
                        > > > I
                        > > > > had
                        > > > > > it pronounced wrong in me noggin. When I was forced to
                        > memorize
                        > > > that
                        > > > > > first canto, way back in the dark ages of high school, it
                        > > > was 'lone
                        > > > > > Glenartney's hazel shade." Has it changed?
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > King James of Scotland is what sparked off the memory. It's a
                        > good
                        > > > > thing
                        > > > > > JR is open to a bit of humorous needling, else the Tower of
                        > > > London for
                        > > > > > me. We were wondering through that place about a month ago.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Ok, Kierkegaard. Here is my question. If we think of the self
                        > in
                        > > > its
                        > > > > > totality as a chamber we occupy, where, being in that room
                        > makes
                        > > > us
                        > > > > what
                        > > > > > we think we are, regardless of what we think we are, whether
                        > > > nothing,
                        > > > > or
                        > > > > > everything, or any complex mixture between, and we suddenly
                        > find
                        > > > > > ourselves outside that room, not in a physical sense, as if
                        > > > standing
                        > > > > > outside ourselves, but because that room was imagined, as
                        > > > revealed by
                        > > > > > finding ourselves outside that room, would you say that a new
                        > > > category
                        > > > > > of self would open up for thinking about? Further, would you
                        > say
                        > > > that
                        > > > > > thinking about this new category of self would require
                        > comparing
                        > > > it to
                        > > > > > the prior category of self?
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Yep, I turned our prior image inside out; no back door.
                        > ~~~~willy
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > PS: Oh yes, a story, well, I am working on one; something
                        > about
                        > > > two on
                        > > > > > a bridge.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > >

                      • Bill
                        ... wrote: Willy, Kierkegaard wrote that even, and especially a child could understand him. There is no developmental process in Kierkegaard. There is no
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jul 27, 2007
                          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@...>
                          wrote:
                          Willy, Kierkegaard wrote that even, and especially a child could
                          understand him. There is no developmental process in Kierkegaard.
                          There is no attempt to show how one moves from one sphere to another.
                          But, I think it is important to point out that if one is going to be
                          ethical one ought to ask why one would need to represent what it
                          means. This is the question Hegel had for Kant, or Why do we need any
                          first princples?

                          The whole point of both Hegel and Kierkegaard is to get rid of
                          all /one-sided/ abstract reasoning. All reasoning of an observing
                          individual who could not laugh at seeing a space occupied by itself.
                          How could such a "space" be represented? Where would one begin? It
                          is absurd to see space as a bringing together of its supposed
                          pieces. We see space as a whole unless one has some serious
                          cognitive problems. I don't believe you do, but how would we know
                          where to begin to understand any piece of space? Why are we just not
                          already in space, by being there?

                          Sorry, I missed your absurdity of the occupant being the room. Bill
                          >
                          > Yep, Bill, your response exemplifies our difficulty; nowhere do you
                          > address my last point; namely, that you have misunderstood what I
                          was
                          > saying, responding not to what I had said, but to what you think I
                          had
                          > said. The metaphor of the room has no occupant, the occupant being
                          the
                          > room, and your response is to an occupant in a room. That
                          difference is
                          > what I see as the exemplifying our absolute divide.
                          >
                          > Your first response missed the point and this, your next response,
                          still
                          > misses the point even after I pointed it out in response to your
                          first
                          > response. In a word, I see nothing that tells me you understand the
                          > metaphor. Until such time that you do, I will keep reminding you of
                          that
                          > lack. You see, it does no good to argue over a point if you don't
                          get
                          > it. Of course, that works both ways. I will admit up front that your
                          > view is opaque to me; I don't even see enough of it to say whether
                          you
                          > are right or wrong. The only difference between us I can speak to
                          is the
                          > absolute difference in the way we interpret Kierkegaard.
                          >
                          > If I were to speculate on the why of that difference, I would say
                          that
                          > if repetition is the movement from the immediate to the eternal,
                          then
                          > your experience, coming at seven years of age, came before you had
                          > really acquired the esthetic sphere, which means that the transition
                          > from the esthetic to the ethical would be meaningless to you.
                          > Considering the developmental process of the child, where abstract
                          > reasoning does not kick in until about eleven years of age, when
                          did you
                          > begin to reflect upon your experience and what is the process of the
                          > ripening of the understanding of your experience; your not having
                          the
                          > abstract tools to understand it at age seven? ~~~~willy
                          >
                          > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <billybob98103@>
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" wilbro99@
                          > > wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > Willy, I enjoy your replies. I learn a lot. Unfortunately, I
                          learn
                          > > to disagree with you. I don't mean to rain on your parade. There
                          > > are a few principles from philosophers that interest me, and they
                          > > help me to set my own experiences in perspective with those
                          > > experiences like your own that seem to assume too much. I was
                          just
                          > > seven when I had my "cave" experience, though it didn't feel like
                          it
                          > > at the time.
                          > >
                          > > Kant writes that we just don't find concepts in our mind ready to
                          > > describe experiences like being in a cave. Nothing came to mind to
                          > > explain the experience except the absudity of needing to reflect
                          on
                          > > it whether or not it in retrospect appeared like being in a cave.
                          > > This is how Plato conceived his experience before he claimed to
                          have
                          > > seen the "light". But, if we are already "there", what is the
                          need
                          > > to conceive "where", unless we want to find an experience to
                          confirm
                          > > what we already ought to know; or that we are already "there"?
                          > >
                          > > Plato felt comfortable in his cave, and like Socrates thought he
                          > > might be able to communicate the experience to others. However,
                          it
                          > > is Kierkegaard who realises that the experince of how one
                          understands
                          > > the transition to Religiousness B cannot be taught. If one does
                          see
                          > > from within a cave, as did Plato, it is absurd that this need to
                          be
                          > > pointed-out. One is already "there". But, it is this being-there
                          > > that needs to find an experience one can recognize as one's own.
                          > > This experience of what it means to have a self requires that we
                          > > already know what to look for, and therefore if we seek ourselves
                          > > from within this darkness we will find ourselves, because we are
                          only
                          > > deceiving ourselves to believe all knowledge is to be distrusted.
                          > > The knowledge of being-there, and indifferent to this knowledge,
                          is
                          > > the basis of our freedom. To understand this freedom requires a
                          > > change in ourselves to hear the "silence" by which this freedom
                          is to
                          > > be understood. Nothing prepares us for the "silence" that seems
                          to
                          > > affirm it. The "silence" is what I've described as the
                          > > Word, or the beginning of time as it can also be described. Bill
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > > Bill, I have set aside any attempt to communicate with you
                          until I
                          > > can
                          > > > figure out how to do so. I left that other group because I was
                          dead
                          > > in
                          > > > the water with both Don and yourself, which left no one to
                          > > communicate
                          > > > with. Meddy is off doing politics and looking to become
                          president
                          > > of the
                          > > > EU some day. Who knows, he may make it.
                          > > >
                          > > > I had written a very long response to your last post, but deep-
                          > > sixed it
                          > > > as more of the same; it's gone to the recycle bin and beyond. I
                          > > think
                          > > > what you have said in the following sentence illustrates our
                          > > disconnect:
                          > > > "Willy, If you are within a room, then there has to be some
                          > > distinction
                          > > > between the room and the inside of the room."
                          > > >
                          > > > You see, what I said to Nickle was cast in terms of the self
                          being
                          > > the
                          > > > room. Not that I needed to, but I clued him in with my 'back
                          door'
                          > > > remark. As such, there was no distinction between the occupant
                          and
                          > > the
                          > > > occupied. That you see what I said as otherwise is probably our
                          > > > difficulty, I will repeat what I had said []:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > "Ok, Kierkegaard. Here is my question. If we think of the self
                          in
                          > > its
                          > > > totality as a chamber we occupy, where, being in that room
                          makes us
                          > > what
                          > > > we think we are, regardless of what we think we are, whether
                          > > nothing, or
                          > > > everything, or any complex mixture between, and we suddenly find
                          > > > ourselves outside that room, not in a physical sense, as if
                          standing
                          > > > outside ourselves, but because that room was imagined, as
                          revealed
                          > > by
                          > > > finding ourselves outside that room, would you say that a new
                          > > category
                          > > > of self would open up for thinking about? Further, would you say
                          > > that
                          > > > thinking about this new category of self would require
                          comparing it
                          > > to
                          > > > the prior category of self?
                          > > >
                          > > > Yep, I turned our prior image inside out; no back door.
                          ~~~~willy"
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <billybob98103@>
                          > > > wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "KTP" nnn88388@ wrote:
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > Willy, If you are within a room, then there has to be some
                          > > > > distinction between the room and the inside of the room. I'm
                          not
                          > > > > sure how that worked-out for you, but it is a great metaphor,
                          > > because
                          > > > > in my experience I asked what type of message am I trying to
                          send
                          > > > > whether or not it is a room that I'm inside.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The only 'message' we can send is to begin with the Word.
                          Instead
                          > > of
                          > > > > trying to figure-out your metaphor one just laughs at the
                          > > absurdity
                          > > > > of knowing what one is trying to describe, and then one starts
                          > > > > wondering what message one would want to send. This is how
                          one
                          > > gets
                          > > > > out of the ethical; with laughter. Only when we are looking
                          to
                          > > send
                          > > > > a message does one find one, or so it seemed.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Suddenly one in a glance sees the message one had been looking
                          > > for.
                          > > > > It is the message that is totally different from ourselves,
                          but
                          > > also
                          > > > > as Kierkegaard describes as identical with ourselves. This is
                          > > what
                          > > > > he describes as the "absolute paradox". Bill
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Nickle, thanks for the correction. I was doing it from
                          memory
                          > > and
                          > > > > I
                          > > > > > had
                          > > > > > > it pronounced wrong in me noggin. When I was forced to
                          > > memorize
                          > > > > that
                          > > > > > > first canto, way back in the dark ages of high school, it
                          > > > > was 'lone
                          > > > > > > Glenartney's hazel shade." Has it changed?
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > King James of Scotland is what sparked off the memory.
                          It's a
                          > > good
                          > > > > > thing
                          > > > > > > JR is open to a bit of humorous needling, else the Tower
                          of
                          > > > > London for
                          > > > > > > me. We were wondering through that place about a month
                          ago.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Ok, Kierkegaard. Here is my question. If we think of the
                          self
                          > > in
                          > > > > its
                          > > > > > > totality as a chamber we occupy, where, being in that room
                          > > makes
                          > > > > us
                          > > > > > what
                          > > > > > > we think we are, regardless of what we think we are,
                          whether
                          > > > > nothing,
                          > > > > > or
                          > > > > > > everything, or any complex mixture between, and we
                          suddenly
                          > > find
                          > > > > > > ourselves outside that room, not in a physical sense, as
                          if
                          > > > > standing
                          > > > > > > outside ourselves, but because that room was imagined, as
                          > > > > revealed by
                          > > > > > > finding ourselves outside that room, would you say that a
                          new
                          > > > > category
                          > > > > > > of self would open up for thinking about? Further, would
                          you
                          > > say
                          > > > > that
                          > > > > > > thinking about this new category of self would require
                          > > comparing
                          > > > > it to
                          > > > > > > the prior category of self?
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Yep, I turned our prior image inside out; no back door.
                          > > ~~~~willy
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > PS: Oh yes, a story, well, I am working on one; something
                          > > about
                          > > > > two on
                          > > > > > > a bridge.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          >
                        • Bill
                          ... wrote: Jim R., Yes, I agree with the difficulty working out Kierkegaard s use of imagination. I might be completely wrong about Blake in
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jul 27, 2007
                            --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
                            <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                            Jim R., Yes, I agree with the difficulty working out Kierkegaard's
                            use of imagination. I might be completely wrong about Blake in
                            comparision to Kierkegaard because I don't understand the differences
                            between their use of imagination either.

                            Hope you figure it out soon. I could use an explination.

                            In my own experience imagination allowed me to put similiar
                            experiences together so that in terms of their repetition I could
                            convince myself of what I really wanted, or the Good. This is very
                            Hegelian, and I've not read if Kierkegaard thought about imagination
                            in the same way. Personally, there are just some things that you
                            want to have over and over again, maybe like choosing one flavour of
                            ice cream from another. However, Kierkegaard does write that unlike
                            Kant our sense of duty to choose (s in the example)becomes more and
                            more of a problem. We according to Kierkegaard become puzzled, and
                            concerned why we have such an attitude. At this point, I think we
                            start wondering about our relationship to God. A famous French woman
                            philospher conveted to Catholism at about this time in her life.
                            Cannot remember her name. Bill

                            > Bill -- Will's quotes are accurate...K did get seriously annoyed
                            with
                            > Schelling at one point and gave up on him for good. But that
                            doesn't mean
                            > there weren't some things that stuck. I think he got the idea of
                            the
                            > aesthetic sphere of existence, and some kind of three stage growth,
                            from
                            > Schelling, who I think based his philosophy on trinitarian models.
                            >
                            > I haven't worked it all out yet, but both K and Blake emphasize the
                            > importance of the imagination, create characters that represent
                            ideal
                            > psychological states or personality types, and have these characters
                            > interact in ways that require readers to make self-defining choices
                            while
                            > reading, and by doing so grow. This doesn't mean there aren't
                            serious
                            > differences as well. I would expect to find that as well. Just
                            haven't
                            > worked it out yet.
                            >
                            > Jim R
                            >
                          • James Rovira
                            Bill -- I think your description of your use of the imagination is pretty consistent with some of Kierkegaard s ideas about the imagination. I think he wants
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jul 28, 2007
                              Bill -- I think your description of your use of the imagination is pretty consistent with some of Kierkegaard's ideas about the imagination.  I think he wants us to engage in something like that process when reading his pseudonymous authorship -- we're confronted with options and choose.  In German Romanticism there's a creative component to the imagination: we do more than just rearrange existing materials, but we make new ones.  I think Kierkegaard rejects that.  Blake I'm still working out, but it seems that the imagination is a vehicle of perception.  It's like another sense: sight, smell, touch, taste, feeling, and imagination/vision.  In that sense it's not strictly creative, as we're seeing what's there behind what the other senses present to us, rather than inventing something that's not there. 

                              Jim R

                              On 7/27/07, Bill <billybob98103@...> wrote:

                              --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
                              <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                              Jim R., Yes, I agree with the difficulty working out Kierkegaard's
                              use of imagination. I might be completely wrong about Blake in
                              comparision to Kierkegaard because I don't understand the differences
                              between their use of imagination either.

                              Hope you figure it out soon. I could use an explination.

                              In my own experience imagination allowed me to put similiar
                              experiences together so that in terms of their repetition I could
                              convince myself of what I really wanted, or the Good. This is very
                              Hegelian, and I've not read if Kierkegaard thought about imagination
                              in the same way. Personally, there are just some things that you
                              want to have over and over again, maybe like choosing one flavour of
                              ice cream from another. However, Kierkegaard does write that unlike
                              Kant our sense of duty to choose (s in the example)becomes more and
                              more of a problem. We according to Kierkegaard become puzzled, and
                              concerned why we have such an attitude. At this point, I think we
                              start wondering about our relationship to God. A famous French woman
                              philospher conveted to Catholism at about this time in her life.
                              Cannot remember her name. Bill


                            • Bill
                              ... wrote: Im R., Yes I agree with your interpretation of both Blake and Kierkegaard. Hannay writes, in addition, that Kierkegaard is
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jul 28, 2007
                                --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "James Rovira"
                                <jamesrovira@...> wrote:
                                Im R., Yes I agree with your interpretation of both Blake and
                                Kierkegaard. Hannay writes, in addition, that Kierkegaard is
                                interested in the continuity of the self through time. I think you
                                and Hannay agree here. Thanks, Bill
                                > Bill -- I think your description of your use of the imagination is
                                pretty
                                > consistent with some of Kierkegaard's ideas about the imagination.
                                I think
                                > he wants us to engage in something like that process when reading
                                his
                                > pseudonymous authorship -- we're confronted with options and
                                choose. In
                                > German Romanticism there's a creative component to the imagination:
                                we do
                                > more than just rearrange existing materials, but we make new ones.
                                I think
                                > Kierkegaard rejects that. Blake I'm still working out, but it
                                seems that
                                > the imagination is a vehicle of perception. It's like another
                                sense: sight,
                                > smell, touch, taste, feeling, and imagination/vision. In that
                                sense it's
                                > not strictly creative, as we're seeing what's there behind what the
                                other
                                > senses present to us, rather than inventing something that's not
                                there.
                                >
                                > Jim R
                                >
                                > On 7/27/07, Bill <billybob98103@...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com<kierkegaardians%
                                40yahoogroups.com>,
                                > > "James Rovira"
                                > > <jamesrovira@> wrote:
                                > > Jim R., Yes, I agree with the difficulty working out Kierkegaard's
                                > > use of imagination. I might be completely wrong about Blake in
                                > > comparision to Kierkegaard because I don't understand the
                                differences
                                > > between their use of imagination either.
                                > >
                                > > Hope you figure it out soon. I could use an explination.
                                > >
                                > > In my own experience imagination allowed me to put similiar
                                > > experiences together so that in terms of their repetition I could
                                > > convince myself of what I really wanted, or the Good. This is very
                                > > Hegelian, and I've not read if Kierkegaard thought about
                                imagination
                                > > in the same way. Personally, there are just some things that you
                                > > want to have over and over again, maybe like choosing one flavour
                                of
                                > > ice cream from another. However, Kierkegaard does write that
                                unlike
                                > > Kant our sense of duty to choose (s in the example)becomes more
                                and
                                > > more of a problem. We according to Kierkegaard become puzzled, and
                                > > concerned why we have such an attitude. At this point, I think we
                                > > start wondering about our relationship to God. A famous French
                                woman
                                > > philospher conveted to Catholism at about this time in her life.
                                > > Cannot remember her name. Bill
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.