Re: Ends & Ends
- << If I had to read Kierkegaard myself, I might never have discovered
this way of his thinking. Millions of people have already discovered
Kierkegaard's wisdom, and fortunately they have communicated it to us.
I can give you Hannay's reference if requested, but me and my computer
are not yet connected (sigh). Bill >>
Bill, I do think this your last paragraph of the response settles the
issue between us. If you are being funny, playing the provocateur, or
if you are not, either way, see you around. No requests. ~~~~ willy
--- In email@example.com, "Bill" <billybob98103@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@>
> Willy, The reason I rely on others is that it is impossible to
> understand what is objective alone. I also can't get in to your mind,
> because for whatever reason you don't disclose how you come to your
> own conclusions. It is not a fault of your personality, but perhaps
> a lack of critical thinking that we all suffer from. Others can be
> more critical, and we can learn from them whether or not it is from
> myself, Kierkegaard, or any one else. You also can't expect everyone
> to just repeat what you think about yourself without it being
> interpreted. A real problem you have is that you think you can
> understand consciousness, for instance. Your disagreement is with a
> world that is to be understood. It is the understanding of Being
> which is has nothing to do with a rational argument you can imagine
> occuring in what you decide from a lofty perch is "consciousness". I
> suggest the "hard work" you avoid is discovering how others reflect,
> or do not reflect your own experiences. A few trips to the stacks
> would benefit you, in my opinion.
> For example, according to the book (see page 24) Fitche and Schelling
> "The reflective intellect remains stubbornly realistic, insisting on
> the independent /being/ that presents itself in consciousness and
> ignoring the fact that nothing finite about consciousness ever
> really /is/ - must be given for lost because it is nothing (nothing
> determinate [because it can't be subsumed under something-my
> You keep on believing that there is a simple act "of turning away
> from the external to carry with it the discovery of and preference
> for the internal. In order that a woman may fall in love with one
> man it is not enough that she falls out of love with another; the
> former must somehow manage to attract her attention (p. 165, What is
> Philosophy?, Ortega.)".
> It is only in joy that we can seperate ourselves from this longing of
> yours for your own self-advantage, or self-interest in being.
> "Joy for C. S. Lewis is a desire for somethig far way. It eludes me
> by proximity - something too near to be seen - something I could not
> stop being. If it was something that could leave off it would be
> there (The Image of Man in C. S. Lewis, p. 110)."
> It is this joy that allows one to "glance" in laughter and see the
> Infinite. It allows one to no longer try to demand your
> mistaken "realism", or belief that there
> "...is a way back in to undifferentiated "Being" [God, the One, my
> addition] once the mind has originated. There is no way to overcome
> the seperation in the finite world, because that would mean the
> mind's overcoming of its very nature (page 293, From Kant to Hegel,
> What we are looking for is what Husserl defined as the epoch, or the
> understanding of Being. One of my professors demonstrated what this
> would mean by allowing his head to fall(not off his head, lol) with
> gravity to the ground. Heidegger was a student of Husserl, and I
> don't think appreciated the necessity for the ground that Husserl
> emphasised in his epoche. There is a great book about the
> disagreement, and does indicate that Heidegger, unlike Kierkegaard,
> lacks the needed authourity to understand Being. The following is an
> example of what I'm looking for, and also my own experience.
> "The finite structure of my particular aspect of nature was as we saw
> the totality appearing in opposition to the particular life of things.
> The essence of gravity is the principle of not-being-for-themselve
> of things. Dependence of things on this ground [Gravity] which
> ultimately unites them in the process of their revealing their
> transience (p. 98, Schelling and the End of Idealism.)."
> This is of course Schelling speaking, and Being is always this
> ignorance we would have for not knowing the origin of its unity. We
> expect this unity, if only to deny it (as you seem to too clearly
> understand), but nothing about this allows us to understand how to
> negate its totality, or Being. Only in joy or in our laughter are we
> allowed to "glance" at this unity by forgetting any self-advantage
> other than our joy that we experience in a proximity that is uncanny.
> As Kierkegaard understands the Good, or to "will one thing", we
> understand this universiality by understanding that within us is a
> reality firmer and more fundamental than an external reality. This
> is discovered in distraction, by putting under being distracted by
> Being (all of it, without distinction) the fundamental distraction of
> our own reflection or gaze. It is our seeing that no one has ever
> been able to understand that ultimately remains what we subsume under
> Being. It is what makes Being undetrstood by finding something of
> ourselves which we can relate it to. How this happens Kierkegaard
> offers an explination about "condition". Somehow this is
> communicated to us.
> What is false is what Kierkegaard describes as "double-mindedness",
> or creating a self for a particular goal to affirm one's self-
> attentivenss, or self-advantagae. Yes, this comes from Hannay, but
> according to him this is also why Kierkegaard criticises do-gooder
> Christians who have decided that only "acts" of friendship, et. al.
> are the basis of Christian faith. We don't know the Good because we
> decide on the Good, but we know it in terms of the Good itself, or
> its own time.
> If I had to read Kierkegaard myself, I might never have discovered
> this way of his thinking. Millions of people have already discovered
> Kierkegaard's wisdom, and fortunately they have communicated it to
> us. I can give you Hannay's reference if requested, but me and my
> computer are not yet connected (sigh).
> > Bill, a few odds and ends for you. We need to supply the lurkers
> with a
> > bit of excitement, do we not?
> > I think we may agree that our respective views of what SK is saying
> > only the words in common, Since you tend to speak in broad
> > generalizations and rarely show where your opinion of what SK is
> > is being said by SK, instead, relying on the authority of others to
> > your work for you, I thought I might question you more closely. Of
> > course, it goes sans saying, that you may do the same of what I say
> > respect to what I see SK saying.
> > You said: "Kierkegaard describes the same situation when he sees
> > double-mindedness is the cause of depression for those who create a
> > false self by it being connected to a problem (or goal) that doesn't
> > really exist."
> > Where does SK say this? Give me his words that says what you say he
> > says, and interpret them in your own words; no props like Hannay et
> > What you have said sounds like something Hannay would say. Are you
> > paraphrasing Hannay? In any event, show me the goods.
> > Oh yes, while you are at it, on this false self business; does that
> > that someone with a false self sees themselves falsely and
> > what happens then when that false self comes to an end? Would that
> > perhaps be an existential occurrence? Does that false self have a
> > consciousness of itself as itself; is it self-conscious? Tell me all
> > about it. Are you sure you don't mean despair instead of depression?
> > <<What is most important is that Ortega is agreeing with all
> > after Kant, including Hegel and Kierkegaard, that all of Western
> > philosophy has been mistaken about what it means to be self-
> > This is my disagreement with you as well.>>
> > Well, that is a general statement about something. I am not sure
> what it
> > means to use 'all' twice as you have used it; are the all after Kant
> > saying that everyone, including themselves, is wrong? Ok, so what is
> > this mistake about what it means to be self-conscious, who are you
> > paraphrasing, and how does it relate to my view?. Out of curiosity,
> > do you think my view is?
> > <<Thanks for your reply, Bill
> > Naw, think nothing of it, I was being sarcastic. ~~~~ willy