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

Re:The Decisive Mutation

Expand Messages
  • Jim Stuart
    Hi Rick, You ask me in what sense I am using the term deserve . when I say that only people who deserve to ascend to higher spheres of existence actually
    Message 1 of 7 , May 17 12:47 PM
      Hi Rick,

      You ask me in what sense I am using the term 'deserve'. when I say that "only people who deserve to ascend to higher spheres of existence actually make the leaps to the higher spheres".

      I'll have to be careful here, as Kierkegaard was in many ways a traditional Lutheran Christian, and he would not want to say that any individual deserved God's grace. God's grace, for the Lutheran, is a free gift to the undeserving sinner. The sinner is free to accept the gift or reject it.

      However, having said that, SK does tell us that our task is to strive for deeper subjectivity and self-knowledge.

      With regard to the leaps to higher spheres, the sort of people who make the leaps are those who are in some sense dissatisfied with their existence at the lower sphere. Certainly those who are complacent and see no need to improve themselves don't move up to higher spheres. The individuals who do move up are those who are dissatisfied with themselves as they are (in the lower sphere(s)), and who struggle for greater goodness, greater self-knowledge, greater integrity, greater passion and greater spirituality. One only progresses to the higher spheres if one makes an absolute effort with an absolute passion. In this sense, only those who deserve to, make the transitions to higher spheres.

      Yours,

      Jim


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Will Brown
      Passion, Rickets, and thoughts and actions before and after a tranny? I notice that Jim has responded that he requires no counter-spin to the spin presently
      Message 2 of 7 , May 18 11:07 AM
        Passion, Rickets, and thoughts and actions before and after a tranny?
        I notice that Jim has responded that he requires no counter-spin to
        the spin presently spinning, i.e., his spin. I am more than willing to
        let that be the case until such time that he sees fit to resume the
        spin-fest.

        I'll answer the specifics generally and let it go at that. Do I see
        the Kgd-ian transition as "something that happens to someone,
        something that happens irrespective of the person's spiritual efforts
        and spiritual state"? Since I see the transition as conditional, the
        leap requiring a platform from which it may rise, the notion of fate
        does not adhere to my thoughts on this matter. There is a necessary
        ripeness and that ripeness has a quality of the whole about it. SK's
        Purity of Heart is a guide to the setting of the whole quality. Some
        of his Upbuilding Discourses address the setting of the whole quality
        in a more personal way by referring to the setting of it in personal
        terms. Perhaps, if it be your desire, we could get into the difference
        between passion and passion, passion being a collectiveness regardless
        of which sphere it is found in.

        That ripeness may come about in another way. Suppose someone who has
        plied the road of division for years, where each goal achieved was
        found not to be the goal that would bring the seeking to an end, the
        goal being peace of mind, suddenly has an insight into that act as a
        whole? This comprehensive seeing would allow a reflection upon the act
        as a whole. If someone who is unaware of beating their head against
        the wall continues the act long enough to see the connection between
        the pain and the act, that insight into the whole act sets the
        platform from which the leap may rise; in this case, the negation of
        the act.

        I would say that in Kierkegaardian terms, the act that must be seen in
        its entirety is the act of the temporal sense of self using the future
        to mold the past to fit the self it wants to reflect upon. SK, in many
        places, refers to the future as the problem to be solved. Since the
        future is the problem, any problem that requires the future to be
        solved is a chimera. If the temporal sense of self itself requires a
        future to maintain itself, then we have the self as the problem, and
        we have the SK connection. I may say more about this later, the self
        as the problem instead of the self having a problem, that is.

        However it come about that the future is exorcised, by following SK's
        guide in Purity of Heart, or an insight into its falseness in the
        matter of self-change, or collecting oneself in the reflection upon
        oneself that includes the one doing the reflecting, that temporal self
        bereft of its future will show its true nature: emptiness, or want, in
        want of being filled. There being no platform from which to leap, the
        leap turns into a fall, a negation, and the tranny is revealed. In
        other words, when the problem of the future is solved, it, and the
        self it supports, comes to an end.

        You want that I should get personal? Of course, what I just said above
        will resonate with a seeker as saying that there is no future and that
        leaves them with no hope, no way out, and they will scream bloody
        murder that I am denying life. I say that there is life after death,
        this particular death; and that, in fact, one finally starts living.
        Ok, I preach.

        Now, there is another solution to the problem that could be no
        solution; that being the giving up of one's future to the hands of
        another. If that other is God, the temporal self finds the fullness in
        being filled with God. The difficulty here is that any doubt about the
        filling brings the pain back. So that solution depends upon holding
        fast to the answer, and defending it against all who would deprive the
        holder of the holding. This is where Old Nick comes in. And this is
        where willyb checks out; I could go on and on laying all of this out,
        but this pile of words should suffice as an answer, or if not that, at
        the least compost, right Ricky?

        Of course, it goes without saying that anyone who has ideas, either
        pro or con, or from outside the arena, may add their voice to this
        thread. Who knows, there might be a 'Daniel' out there who can beard
        this particular lion in its den. Jump in; there is nothing to lose
        except the thought of losing. ----willy_nilly
      • Will Brown
        Well, Rick, methinks you have made the error of proposing a root distinction that admits to being read as meaningful from both sides of the distinction. Let me
        Message 3 of 7 , May 25 1:53 PM
          Well, Rick, methinks you have made the error of proposing a root
          distinction that admits to being read as meaningful from both sides of
          the distinction. Let me do a number, friendly, of course, on your
          self/mind change scheme. Self is a term to which the qualitative
          dialectic may apply. SK respects the QD by referring to a subjectivity
          to the second power, or to an inwardness not commensurate to the
          inwardness that had an outward component. Still, it is possible for
          the mind to imagine such a difference (in your case we really need to
          thresh it out). We can say, and mean, that we can change our mind
          'absolutely,' where such a reflection can be the template to
          see/imagine an absolute change of self.

          For example, the Stuart/Ferreira Consortium arrives at the seeing of
          the qualitative shift as a /Gestalt/ shift in perception; the change
          in perception engenders a change in the self, and since the perceiver
          is the same before and after, where only the perception changes, a
          continuity is maintained. Now, that may be the case of it when viewed
          esthetically. The body/perceiver complex remains the same and it is
          the self-perception that changes. But that is /not/ the case of it
          when we are dealing with things that go bump in the existential night.
          That to which the QD applies is the special case in which the absolute
          disjunction between the spheres adheres.

          Here is how I would make the case for the case I just made. K says
          that the QD must be respected. It therefore follows that that which
          shifts in that absolute sense must be capable of changing in that
          absolute sense. In other words, if a continuity may be ascribed to the
          /Gestalt/ shift, then that which is assumed to have shifted cannot be
          that to which the CD applies.

          It seems to me that your claim of reading the disjunction into SK's
          words rests solely upon the logic of what I have just said. The only
          way to then respect the QD is take the disjunction as meaning what it
          says and concretely applying that meaning to existence—which is
          how
          you have described your take, and applying that possibility of that
          take being SK's point when reading what he has said. Since you find
          that possibility running throughout his works, you may logically
          conclude that he is probably speaking to an existentially qualified
          leap.

          The way of appropriation could simply be one of experiencing such an
          absolute shift and being completely confused by it. After all, here
          would be an experience like no other that has been registered before.
          It would be of another order, as if something had happened to the me
          to whom things happened; a change like no other change. Perhaps, then,
          the question of what changed would a inquiry into the possibilities of
          that change being a change of mind, or of thought, or perspective, and
          all such changes that maintained a continuity across the absolute
          shift.

          If all of those attempts came to rest in the notion that the only
          change possible to make sense of such an absolute change was a change
          in one's sense of self, the category in which the QD that could be
          respected opens to contemplation. Now, if that way of appropriation
          were to follow the course described, it would exit at the same logical
          point; that the QD applies to the special case, the case that could be
          said to be defining the existential.

          If, as you say, your acceptance of that logic arose because of your
          relegation of the change to the category of existence, then you began
          in the right place. What I cannot see, and this is why I think you
          dissemble, is this; there is no way to read SK from that place without
          appropriating that place. This tells me, correctly or wrongly, and
          given your position of denying appropriation, that either your entry
          was as you have stated, and are not telling the whole story, or you
          are a closet-consortium, an incognito persona, adopting the purely
          logical position for whatever purpose you see it accomplishing.

          Well, that being said, not to object but to commend; if I were to
          create an ideal dialogue, I would invent you as the anti-willy to show
          the distinction between the logic of the leap and the leap itself as a
          didactical tool. In fact, since I myself am a pseudonym, it is well
          within the realm of possibility that you and I are a dialectical pair
          fashioned in the diabolical mind of some wearisome wag who loves to
          talk to himself.

          The great thing about this www is that nobody can be assumed to be who
          they say they are, and that what rules are not the personalities but
          the ideas that come to be expressed, along with the interplay that
          rises from their expression. And what better forum to engender such an
          interplay than a Kierkegaardian forum, given that his words are
          capable of reflecting such a diversity of views? I see where there are
          new members. Why not jump in? There are no sharks in these waters.
          Willy Brown, Herbivore
        • sorenmad
          Hey Willy, Mike from the pit here. I was just browsing around to figure out how to spell innconsummerate and thought this might be a better place to start
          Message 4 of 7 , May 30 1:28 PM
            Hey Willy, Mike from the pit here. I was just browsing around to
            figure out how to spell "innconsummerate" and thought this might be a
            better place to start than starting a new thread. So if I am
            repeating anything that may have already formed from this post please
            forgive me.

            I guess a good place to begin may be with the "tranny" and the leap.
            I have a hunch that the tranny is addressed in the infamous page 199-
            200 of "Works of Love" (Inluded at the end of this post) I have
            another hunch that this tranny is a one time tranny, which in my
            particular case came about while reading the book of genesis. It was
            a sense of letting the words dissappear into a picture, because the
            words did not make sense otherwise. Amyway, this letting go let me
            start a process which led to my trusting of certain historical
            documents, esp. Johns gospel, to the point where I accepted that God
            had become a man. No need for inlallibility or inneracy, just an ear
            for the spirit speaking through not only the scriptures, but in other
            ways that cannot be shared without making myself look rather insane
            to the un-initiated, and perhaps to the initiated in Christ as well.

            Im wondering how this tranition fits into your scheme of things.
            From what I see here it is likely something to do with talking to
            yourself! but what i am trying to figure out most of all is the
            consumerability or inconsumerability of our views, asumming i am
            making enough sense for you to answer.

            What I think I may be seeing, is that you can have your way without
            my way, but I can have my way with your way, which may b K's way.

            One problem is that I cannot tell if you are deluded or not, because
            I don't follow what you are saying so well. Perhaps you could break
            the ice by letting my know if the leap is related to the de-tailing
            process mentioned in "another doodle" (I ahve a hunch the leap and
            the transition are not the same thing. ie.- the tranition may be a
            leap, but not the only leap.

            the forever falling poster previously known as ABADDON, -Mike

            ps. this was posted without profreading for fear I would become self-
            concious and not post at all.

            "All human language about the spiritual, yes, even the divine
            language of Holy Scriptures, is essentially transferred or
            metaphorical language. This is quite in order or corresponds to the
            order of things and of existence, since even though man is spirit
            from the moment of birth he first becomes conscious as spirit later,
            and therefore prior to this he has lived for a certain time within
            sensuous-psychic categories. The first portion of life shall not,
            however, be cast aside when the spirit awakens, any more than the
            awakening of spirit announces itself in sensuous or sensuous-psychic
            modes in contrast to the sensuous or sensuous-psychic. The first
            portion is taken over by spirit, and, thus used, thus laid at the
            base, it becomes transferred. Therefore the spiritual man and the
            sensuous-psychic man say the same thing in a sense, and yet there
            remains an infinite difference between what they say, since the
            latter does not suspect the secret of transferred language, even
            though he uses the same words, but not metaphorically. There is a
            world of difference between the two; the one has made a transition or
            has let himself be led over to the other side; whereas the other has
            remained on this side. Yet there is something binding which they have
            in common - they both use the same language. One in whom the spirit
            is awakened does not therefore leave the visible world. Although now
            conscious of himself as spirit, he is still continually in the world
            of the visible and is himself sensuously visible; likewise he also
            remains in the language, except that it is transferred. Transferred
            language is, then, not a brand new language; it is rather the
            language already at hand. Just as spirit is invisible, so also is its
            language a secret, and the secret rests precisely in this that it
            uses the same language as the simple man and the child but uses it as
            transferred. Thereby the spirit denies (but not in a sensuous or
            sensuous-psychic manner) that it is the sensuous or sensuous-psychic.
            The distinction is by no means directly apparent. Therefore we quite
            rightly regard emphasis upon a directly apparent distinction as a
            sign of false spirituality¡ªwhich is mere sensuousness; whereas the
            presence of spirit is the quiet, whispering secret of transferred
            language - audible to him who has an ear to hear." (WL, Hong, pp. 199-
            200)







            --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
            wrote:
            > Passion, Rickets, and thoughts and actions before and after a
            tranny?
            > I notice that Jim has responded that he requires no counter-spin to
            > the spin presently spinning, i.e., his spin. I am more than willing
            to
            > let that be the case until such time that he sees fit to resume the
            > spin-fest.
            >
            > I'll answer the specifics generally and let it go at that. Do I see
            > the Kgd-ian transition as "something that happens to someone,
            > something that happens irrespective of the person's spiritual
            efforts
            > and spiritual state"? Since I see the transition as conditional, the
            > leap requiring a platform from which it may rise, the notion of fate
            > does not adhere to my thoughts on this matter. There is a necessary
            > ripeness and that ripeness has a quality of the whole about it.
            SK's
            > Purity of Heart is a guide to the setting of the whole quality. Some
            > of his Upbuilding Discourses address the setting of the whole
            quality
            > in a more personal way by referring to the setting of it in personal
            > terms. Perhaps, if it be your desire, we could get into the
            difference
            > between passion and passion, passion being a collectiveness
            regardless
            > of which sphere it is found in.
            >
            > That ripeness may come about in another way. Suppose someone who has
            > plied the road of division for years, where each goal achieved was
            > found not to be the goal that would bring the seeking to an end, the
            > goal being peace of mind, suddenly has an insight into that act as a
            > whole? This comprehensive seeing would allow a reflection upon the
            act
            > as a whole. If someone who is unaware of beating their head against
            > the wall continues the act long enough to see the connection between
            > the pain and the act, that insight into the whole act sets the
            > platform from which the leap may rise; in this case, the negation of
            > the act.
            >
            > I would say that in Kierkegaardian terms, the act that must be seen
            in
            > its entirety is the act of the temporal sense of self using the
            future
            > to mold the past to fit the self it wants to reflect upon. SK, in
            many
            > places, refers to the future as the problem to be solved. Since the
            > future is the problem, any problem that requires the future to be
            > solved is a chimera. If the temporal sense of self itself requires a
            > future to maintain itself, then we have the self as the problem, and
            > we have the SK connection. I may say more about this later, the self
            > as the problem instead of the self having a problem, that is.
            >
            > However it come about that the future is exorcised, by following
            SK's
            > guide in Purity of Heart, or an insight into its falseness in the
            > matter of self-change, or collecting oneself in the reflection upon
            > oneself that includes the one doing the reflecting, that temporal
            self
            > bereft of its future will show its true nature: emptiness, or want,
            in
            > want of being filled. There being no platform from which to leap,
            the
            > leap turns into a fall, a negation, and the tranny is revealed. In
            > other words, when the problem of the future is solved, it, and the
            > self it supports, comes to an end.
            >
            > You want that I should get personal? Of course, what I just said
            above
            > will resonate with a seeker as saying that there is no future and
            that
            > leaves them with no hope, no way out, and they will scream bloody
            > murder that I am denying life. I say that there is life after death,
            > this particular death; and that, in fact, one finally starts living.
            > Ok, I preach.
            >
            > Now, there is another solution to the problem that could be no
            > solution; that being the giving up of one's future to the hands of
            > another. If that other is God, the temporal self finds the fullness
            in
            > being filled with God. The difficulty here is that any doubt about
            the
            > filling brings the pain back. So that solution depends upon holding
            > fast to the answer, and defending it against all who would deprive
            the
            > holder of the holding. This is where Old Nick comes in. And this is
            > where willyb checks out; I could go on and on laying all of this
            out,
            > but this pile of words should suffice as an answer, or if not that,
            at
            > the least compost, right Ricky?
            >
            > Of course, it goes without saying that anyone who has ideas, either
            > pro or con, or from outside the arena, may add their voice to this
            > thread. Who knows, there might be a 'Daniel' out there who can beard
            > this particular lion in its den. Jump in; there is nothing to lose
            > except the thought of losing. ----willy_nilly
          • Will Brown
            Hey, ABBADON, shades of the past cool the brow. You have asked, both directly and indirectly, questions I thoroughly enjoy wrapping the answer-mind around,
            Message 5 of 7 , May 30 9:47 PM
              Hey, ABBADON, shades of the past cool the brow. You have asked, both
              directly and indirectly, questions I thoroughly enjoy wrapping the
              answer-mind around, especially the one about the leap/transition
              complex. This is something I really want to explore as slowly as
              possible. You have mentioned a 'letting go' and SK speaks continually
              to being nothing before God. Professor Ferreira speaks of the leap as
              a letting go. Let go and Let God. I think of all of that in terms of a
              release. There is a release, whereas before there was a binding. In my
              way of thinking, this is a pluralistic matter, so I am looking for a
              single door, or one needle's eye, through which one, in passing,
              describes it in their own personal terms. If it is a release, a
              letting go, and how can it be said that it is not a letting go when in
              personal terms it reflects as such, then what else can be let go of
              but one's sense of personal? The difficulty of my position is that my
              reading of it is also personal. What was the name of that worm?

              Have I complicated that beyond reason? I read what you are saying
              about the shift from the words to a picture and I find myself saying
              that I know what you are talking about. I do not know that I do, but
              what you say grabs me in that way. There is a different order of
              grasping things between the words and the picture. I would further
              agree that your self-description of the process is much more closely
              aligned to SK's meaning than mine, yours probably going as far as SK's
              Religiousness B, which I can only make a vague pass at.

              As I think about my vague pass at that incarnation scene, there is, on
              my part, a sense of contacting a mystery because of its location in
              "my" world. In coming out of the notion of inwardness and back into
              the world that one's toe gets stubbed in, that inwardness that is
              solely mine transforms itself to the outward as an enclosure. I often
              viscerally sense the movement from one order to another in my body's
              world, as it were.

              My personal description of the leap/transition complex is captured in
              the de-tail I offered. You have a hunch that the leap and the
              transition are not the same thing, the transition being one face of
              the leap. I cannot say that you are wrong. I don't know. My only
              rebuttal is that there is only one transition and that the only
              difference is in its expression. I feel that I am correct, but the
              only correctness to be found in that is that that is what I feel.
              Someone who feels the opposite has that same truth, so again the worm
              eats itself.

              May the force be with you! And hearing from you again in a formal
              setting is music to my ears.

              Apollyon7676 (the double spirit),
              Yet another pit-man


              --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "sorenmad" <sorenmad@y...> wrote:
              > Hey Willy, Mike from the pit here. I was just browsing around to
              > figure out how to spell "innconsummerate" and thought this might be a
              > better place to start than starting a new thread. So if I am
              > repeating anything that may have already formed from this post please
              > forgive me.
              >
              > I guess a good place to begin may be with the "tranny" and the leap.
              > I have a hunch that the tranny is addressed in the infamous page 199-
              > 200 of "Works of Love" (Inluded at the end of this post) I have
              > another hunch that this tranny is a one time tranny, which in my
              > particular case came about while reading the book of genesis. It was
              > a sense of letting the words dissappear into a picture, because the
              > words did not make sense otherwise. Amyway, this letting go let me
              > start a process which led to my trusting of certain historical
              > documents, esp. Johns gospel, to the point where I accepted that God
              > had become a man. No need for inlallibility or inneracy, just an ear
              > for the spirit speaking through not only the scriptures, but in other
              > ways that cannot be shared without making myself look rather insane
              > to the un-initiated, and perhaps to the initiated in Christ as well.
              >
              > Im wondering how this tranition fits into your scheme of things.
              > From what I see here it is likely something to do with talking to
              > yourself! but what i am trying to figure out most of all is the
              > consumerability or inconsumerability of our views, asumming i am
              > making enough sense for you to answer.
              >
              > What I think I may be seeing, is that you can have your way without
              > my way, but I can have my way with your way, which may b K's way.
              >
              > One problem is that I cannot tell if you are deluded or not, because
              > I don't follow what you are saying so well. Perhaps you could break
              > the ice by letting my know if the leap is related to the de-tailing
              > process mentioned in "another doodle" (I ahve a hunch the leap and
              > the transition are not the same thing. ie.- the tranition may be a
              > leap, but not the only leap.
              >
              > the forever falling poster previously known as ABADDON, -Mike
              >
              > ps. this was posted without profreading for fear I would become self-
              > concious and not post at all.
              >
              > "All human language about the spiritual, yes, even the divine
              > language of Holy Scriptures, is essentially transferred or
              > metaphorical language. This is quite in order or corresponds to the
              > order of things and of existence, since even though man is spirit
              > from the moment of birth he first becomes conscious as spirit later,
              > and therefore prior to this he has lived for a certain time within
              > sensuous-psychic categories. The first portion of life shall not,
              > however, be cast aside when the spirit awakens, any more than the
              > awakening of spirit announces itself in sensuous or sensuous-psychic
              > modes in contrast to the sensuous or sensuous-psychic. The first
              > portion is taken over by spirit, and, thus used, thus laid at the
              > base, it becomes transferred. Therefore the spiritual man and the
              > sensuous-psychic man say the same thing in a sense, and yet there
              > remains an infinite difference between what they say, since the
              > latter does not suspect the secret of transferred language, even
              > though he uses the same words, but not metaphorically. There is a
              > world of difference between the two; the one has made a transition or
              > has let himself be led over to the other side; whereas the other has
              > remained on this side. Yet there is something binding which they have
              > in common - they both use the same language. One in whom the spirit
              > is awakened does not therefore leave the visible world. Although now
              > conscious of himself as spirit, he is still continually in the world
              > of the visible and is himself sensuously visible; likewise he also
              > remains in the language, except that it is transferred. Transferred
              > language is, then, not a brand new language; it is rather the
              > language already at hand. Just as spirit is invisible, so also is its
              > language a secret, and the secret rests precisely in this that it
              > uses the same language as the simple man and the child but uses it as
              > transferred. Thereby the spirit denies (but not in a sensuous or
              > sensuous-psychic manner) that it is the sensuous or sensuous-psychic.
              > The distinction is by no means directly apparent. Therefore we quite
              > rightly regard emphasis upon a directly apparent distinction as a
              > sign of false spirituality¡ªwhich is mere sensuousness; whereas the
              > presence of spirit is the quiet, whispering secret of transferred
              > language - audible to him who has an ear to hear." (WL, Hong, pp. 199-
              > 200)
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
              > wrote:
              > > Passion, Rickets, and thoughts and actions before and after a
              > tranny?
              > > I notice that Jim has responded that he requires no counter-spin to
              > > the spin presently spinning, i.e., his spin. I am more than willing
              > to
              > > let that be the case until such time that he sees fit to resume the
              > > spin-fest.
              > >
              > > I'll answer the specifics generally and let it go at that. Do I see
              > > the Kgd-ian transition as "something that happens to someone,
              > > something that happens irrespective of the person's spiritual
              > efforts
              > > and spiritual state"? Since I see the transition as conditional, the
              > > leap requiring a platform from which it may rise, the notion of fate
              > > does not adhere to my thoughts on this matter. There is a necessary
              > > ripeness and that ripeness has a quality of the whole about it.
              > SK's
              > > Purity of Heart is a guide to the setting of the whole quality. Some
              > > of his Upbuilding Discourses address the setting of the whole
              > quality
              > > in a more personal way by referring to the setting of it in personal
              > > terms. Perhaps, if it be your desire, we could get into the
              > difference
              > > between passion and passion, passion being a collectiveness
              > regardless
              > > of which sphere it is found in.
              > >
              > > That ripeness may come about in another way. Suppose someone who has
              > > plied the road of division for years, where each goal achieved was
              > > found not to be the goal that would bring the seeking to an end, the
              > > goal being peace of mind, suddenly has an insight into that act as a
              > > whole? This comprehensive seeing would allow a reflection upon the
              > act
              > > as a whole. If someone who is unaware of beating their head against
              > > the wall continues the act long enough to see the connection between
              > > the pain and the act, that insight into the whole act sets the
              > > platform from which the leap may rise; in this case, the negation of
              > > the act.
              > >
              > > I would say that in Kierkegaardian terms, the act that must be seen
              > in
              > > its entirety is the act of the temporal sense of self using the
              > future
              > > to mold the past to fit the self it wants to reflect upon. SK, in
              > many
              > > places, refers to the future as the problem to be solved. Since the
              > > future is the problem, any problem that requires the future to be
              > > solved is a chimera. If the temporal sense of self itself requires a
              > > future to maintain itself, then we have the self as the problem, and
              > > we have the SK connection. I may say more about this later, the self
              > > as the problem instead of the self having a problem, that is.
              > >
              > > However it come about that the future is exorcised, by following
              > SK's
              > > guide in Purity of Heart, or an insight into its falseness in the
              > > matter of self-change, or collecting oneself in the reflection upon
              > > oneself that includes the one doing the reflecting, that temporal
              > self
              > > bereft of its future will show its true nature: emptiness, or want,
              > in
              > > want of being filled. There being no platform from which to leap,
              > the
              > > leap turns into a fall, a negation, and the tranny is revealed. In
              > > other words, when the problem of the future is solved, it, and the
              > > self it supports, comes to an end.
              > >
              > > You want that I should get personal? Of course, what I just said
              > above
              > > will resonate with a seeker as saying that there is no future and
              > that
              > > leaves them with no hope, no way out, and they will scream bloody
              > > murder that I am denying life. I say that there is life after death,
              > > this particular death; and that, in fact, one finally starts living.
              > > Ok, I preach.
              > >
              > > Now, there is another solution to the problem that could be no
              > > solution; that being the giving up of one's future to the hands of
              > > another. If that other is God, the temporal self finds the fullness
              > in
              > > being filled with God. The difficulty here is that any doubt about
              > the
              > > filling brings the pain back. So that solution depends upon holding
              > > fast to the answer, and defending it against all who would deprive
              > the
              > > holder of the holding. This is where Old Nick comes in. And this is
              > > where willyb checks out; I could go on and on laying all of this
              > out,
              > > but this pile of words should suffice as an answer, or if not that,
              > at
              > > the least compost, right Ricky?
              > >
              > > Of course, it goes without saying that anyone who has ideas, either
              > > pro or con, or from outside the arena, may add their voice to this
              > > thread. Who knows, there might be a 'Daniel' out there who can beard
              > > this particular lion in its den. Jump in; there is nothing to lose
              > > except the thought of losing. ----willy_nilly
            • sorenmad
              ... continually ... as ... of a ... my ... in ... my ... SK s ... on ... often ... in ... worm ... be a ... please ... leap. ... 199- ... was ... the ... me
              Message 6 of 7 , Jun 1, 2005
                --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown" <wilbro99@y...>
                wrote:
                > Hey, ABBADON, shades of the past cool the brow. You have asked, both
                > directly and indirectly, questions I thoroughly enjoy wrapping the
                > answer-mind around, especially the one about the leap/transition
                > complex. This is something I really want to explore as slowly as
                > possible. You have mentioned a 'letting go' and SK speaks
                continually
                > to being nothing before God. Professor Ferreira speaks of the leap
                as
                > a letting go. Let go and Let God. I think of all of that in terms
                of a
                > release. There is a release, whereas before there was a binding. In
                my
                > way of thinking, this is a pluralistic matter, so I am looking for a
                > single door, or one needle's eye, through which one, in passing,
                > describes it in their own personal terms. If it is a release, a
                > letting go, and how can it be said that it is not a letting go when
                in
                > personal terms it reflects as such, then what else can be let go of
                > but one's sense of personal? The difficulty of my position is that
                my
                > reading of it is also personal. What was the name of that worm?
                >
                > Have I complicated that beyond reason? I read what you are saying
                > about the shift from the words to a picture and I find myself saying
                > that I know what you are talking about. I do not know that I do, but
                > what you say grabs me in that way. There is a different order of
                > grasping things between the words and the picture. I would further
                > agree that your self-description of the process is much more closely
                > aligned to SK's meaning than mine, yours probably going as far as
                SK's
                > Religiousness B, which I can only make a vague pass at.
                >
                > As I think about my vague pass at that incarnation scene, there is,
                on
                > my part, a sense of contacting a mystery because of its location in
                > "my" world. In coming out of the notion of inwardness and back into
                > the world that one's toe gets stubbed in, that inwardness that is
                > solely mine transforms itself to the outward as an enclosure. I
                often
                > viscerally sense the movement from one order to another in my body's
                > world, as it were.
                >
                > My personal description of the leap/transition complex is captured
                in
                > the de-tail I offered. You have a hunch that the leap and the
                > transition are not the same thing, the transition being one face of
                > the leap. I cannot say that you are wrong. I don't know. My only
                > rebuttal is that there is only one transition and that the only
                > difference is in its expression. I feel that I am correct, but the
                > only correctness to be found in that is that that is what I feel.
                > Someone who feels the opposite has that same truth, so again the
                worm
                > eats itself.
                >
                > May the force be with you! And hearing from you again in a formal
                > setting is music to my ears.
                >
                > Apollyon7676 (the double spirit),
                > Yet another pit-man
                >
                >
                > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "sorenmad" <sorenmad@y...>
                wrote:
                > > Hey Willy, Mike from the pit here. I was just browsing around to
                > > figure out how to spell "innconsummerate" and thought this might
                be a
                > > better place to start than starting a new thread. So if I am
                > > repeating anything that may have already formed from this post
                please
                > > forgive me.
                > >
                > > I guess a good place to begin may be with the "tranny" and the
                leap.
                > > I have a hunch that the tranny is addressed in the infamous page
                199-
                > > 200 of "Works of Love" (Inluded at the end of this post) I have
                > > another hunch that this tranny is a one time tranny, which in my
                > > particular case came about while reading the book of genesis. It
                was
                > > a sense of letting the words dissappear into a picture, because
                the
                > > words did not make sense otherwise. Amyway, this letting go let
                me
                > > start a process which led to my trusting of certain historical
                > > documents, esp. Johns gospel, to the point where I accepted that
                God
                > > had become a man. No need for inlallibility or inneracy, just an
                ear
                > > for the spirit speaking through not only the scriptures, but in
                other
                > > ways that cannot be shared without making myself look rather
                insane
                > > to the un-initiated, and perhaps to the initiated in Christ as
                well.
                > >
                > > Im wondering how this tranition fits into your scheme of things.
                > > From what I see here it is likely something to do with talking to
                > > yourself! but what i am trying to figure out most of all is the
                > > consumerability or inconsumerability of our views, asumming i am
                > > making enough sense for you to answer.
                > >
                > > What I think I may be seeing, is that you can have your way
                without
                > > my way, but I can have my way with your way, which may b K's way.
                > >
                > > One problem is that I cannot tell if you are deluded or not,
                because
                > > I don't follow what you are saying so well. Perhaps you could
                break
                > > the ice by letting my know if the leap is related to the de-
                tailing
                > > process mentioned in "another doodle" (I ahve a hunch the leap
                and
                > > the transition are not the same thing. ie.- the tranition may be
                a
                > > leap, but not the only leap.
                > >
                > > the forever falling poster previously known as ABADDON, -Mike
                > >
                > > ps. this was posted without profreading for fear I would become
                self-
                > > concious and not post at all.
                > >
                > > "All human language about the spiritual, yes, even the divine
                > > language of Holy Scriptures, is essentially transferred or
                > > metaphorical language. This is quite in order or corresponds to
                the
                > > order of things and of existence, since even though man is spirit
                > > from the moment of birth he first becomes conscious as spirit
                later,
                > > and therefore prior to this he has lived for a certain time
                within
                > > sensuous-psychic categories. The first portion of life shall not,
                > > however, be cast aside when the spirit awakens, any more than the
                > > awakening of spirit announces itself in sensuous or sensuous-
                psychic
                > > modes in contrast to the sensuous or sensuous-psychic. The first
                > > portion is taken over by spirit, and, thus used, thus laid at the
                > > base, it becomes transferred. Therefore the spiritual man and the
                > > sensuous-psychic man say the same thing in a sense, and yet there
                > > remains an infinite difference between what they say, since the
                > > latter does not suspect the secret of transferred language, even
                > > though he uses the same words, but not metaphorically. There is a
                > > world of difference between the two; the one has made a
                transition or
                > > has let himself be led over to the other side; whereas the other
                has
                > > remained on this side. Yet there is something binding which they
                have
                > > in common - they both use the same language. One in whom the
                spirit
                > > is awakened does not therefore leave the visible world. Although
                now
                > > conscious of himself as spirit, he is still continually in the
                world
                > > of the visible and is himself sensuously visible; likewise he
                also
                > > remains in the language, except that it is transferred.
                Transferred
                > > language is, then, not a brand new language; it is rather the
                > > language already at hand. Just as spirit is invisible, so also is
                its
                > > language a secret, and the secret rests precisely in this that it
                > > uses the same language as the simple man and the child but uses
                it as
                > > transferred. Thereby the spirit denies (but not in a sensuous or
                > > sensuous-psychic manner) that it is the sensuous or sensuous-
                psychic.
                > > The distinction is by no means directly apparent. Therefore we
                quite
                > > rightly regard emphasis upon a directly apparent distinction as a
                > > sign of false spirituality~{!*~}which is mere sensuousness; whereas
                the
                > > presence of spirit is the quiet, whispering secret of transferred
                > > language - audible to him who has an ear to hear." (WL, Hong, pp.
                199-
                > > 200)
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown"
                <wilbro99@y...>
                > > wrote:
                > > > Passion, Rickets, and thoughts and actions before and after a
                > > tranny?
                > > > I notice that Jim has responded that he requires no counter-
                spin to
                > > > the spin presently spinning, i.e., his spin. I am more than
                willing
                > > to
                > > > let that be the case until such time that he sees fit to resume
                the
                > > > spin-fest.
                > > >
                > > > I'll answer the specifics generally and let it go at that. Do I
                see
                > > > the Kgd-ian transition as "something that happens to someone,
                > > > something that happens irrespective of the person's spiritual
                > > efforts
                > > > and spiritual state"? Since I see the transition as
                conditional, the
                > > > leap requiring a platform from which it may rise, the notion of
                fate
                > > > does not adhere to my thoughts on this matter. There is a
                necessary
                > > > ripeness and that ripeness has a quality of the whole about
                it.
                > > SK's
                > > > Purity of Heart is a guide to the setting of the whole quality.
                Some
                > > > of his Upbuilding Discourses address the setting of the whole
                > > quality
                > > > in a more personal way by referring to the setting of it in
                personal
                > > > terms. Perhaps, if it be your desire, we could get into the
                > > difference
                > > > between passion and passion, passion being a collectiveness
                > > regardless
                > > > of which sphere it is found in.
                > > >
                > > > That ripeness may come about in another way. Suppose someone
                who has
                > > > plied the road of division for years, where each goal achieved
                was
                > > > found not to be the goal that would bring the seeking to an
                end, the
                > > > goal being peace of mind, suddenly has an insight into that act
                as a
                > > > whole? This comprehensive seeing would allow a reflection upon
                the
                > > act
                > > > as a whole. If someone who is unaware of beating their head
                against
                > > > the wall continues the act long enough to see the connection
                between
                > > > the pain and the act, that insight into the whole act sets the
                > > > platform from which the leap may rise; in this case, the
                negation of
                > > > the act.
                > > >
                > > > I would say that in Kierkegaardian terms, the act that must be
                seen
                > > in
                > > > its entirety is the act of the temporal sense of self using the
                > > future
                > > > to mold the past to fit the self it wants to reflect upon. SK,
                in
                > > many
                > > > places, refers to the future as the problem to be solved. Since
                the
                > > > future is the problem, any problem that requires the future to
                be
                > > > solved is a chimera. If the temporal sense of self itself
                requires a
                > > > future to maintain itself, then we have the self as the
                problem, and
                > > > we have the SK connection. I may say more about this later, the
                self
                > > > as the problem instead of the self having a problem, that is.
                > > >
                > > > However it come about that the future is exorcised, by
                following
                > > SK's
                > > > guide in Purity of Heart, or an insight into its falseness in
                the
                > > > matter of self-change, or collecting oneself in the reflection
                upon
                > > > oneself that includes the one doing the reflecting, that
                temporal
                > > self
                > > > bereft of its future will show its true nature: emptiness, or
                want,
                > > in
                > > > want of being filled. There being no platform from which to
                leap,
                > > the
                > > > leap turns into a fall, a negation, and the tranny is revealed.
                In
                > > > other words, when the problem of the future is solved, it, and
                the
                > > > self it supports, comes to an end.
                > > >
                > > > You want that I should get personal? Of course, what I just
                said
                > > above
                > > > will resonate with a seeker as saying that there is no future
                and
                > > that
                > > > leaves them with no hope, no way out, and they will scream
                bloody
                > > > murder that I am denying life. I say that there is life after
                death,
                > > > this particular death; and that, in fact, one finally starts
                living.
                > > > Ok, I preach.
                > > >
                > > > Now, there is another solution to the problem that could be no
                > > > solution; that being the giving up of one's future to the hands
                of
                > > > another. If that other is God, the temporal self finds the
                fullness
                > > in
                > > > being filled with God. The difficulty here is that any doubt
                about
                > > the
                > > > filling brings the pain back. So that solution depends upon
                holding
                > > > fast to the answer, and defending it against all who would
                deprive
                > > the
                > > > holder of the holding. This is where Old Nick comes in. And
                this is
                > > > where willyb checks out; I could go on and on laying all of
                this
                > > out,
                > > > but this pile of words should suffice as an answer, or if not
                that,
                > > at
                > > > the least compost, right Ricky?
                > > >
                > > > Of course, it goes without saying that anyone who has ideas,
                either
                > > > pro or con, or from outside the arena, may add their voice to
                this
                > > > thread. Who knows, there might be a 'Daniel' out there who can
                beard
                > > > this particular lion in its den. Jump in; there is nothing to
                lose
                > > > except the thought of losing. ----willy_nilly
              • sorenmad
                -im really out to lunch now, I made a post explaining how I thought everthing I wrote on the last post got lost, and I cant find that post! ill try again
                Message 7 of 7 , Jun 1, 2005
                  -im really out to lunch now, I made a post explaining how I thought
                  everthing I wrote on the last post got lost, and I cant find that
                  post! ill try again tomorrow, lunch is getting cold


                  abaddon



                  -- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "sorenmad" <sorenmad@y...>
                  wrote:
                  > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown"
                  <wilbro99@y...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > Hey, ABBADON, shades of the past cool the brow. You have asked,
                  both
                  > > directly and indirectly, questions I thoroughly enjoy wrapping the
                  > > answer-mind around, especially the one about the leap/transition
                  > > complex. This is something I really want to explore as slowly as
                  > > possible. You have mentioned a 'letting go' and SK speaks
                  > continually
                  > > to being nothing before God. Professor Ferreira speaks of the
                  leap
                  > as
                  > > a letting go. Let go and Let God. I think of all of that in terms
                  > of a
                  > > release. There is a release, whereas before there was a binding.
                  In
                  > my
                  > > way of thinking, this is a pluralistic matter, so I am looking
                  for a
                  > > single door, or one needle's eye, through which one, in passing,
                  > > describes it in their own personal terms. If it is a release, a
                  > > letting go, and how can it be said that it is not a letting go
                  when
                  > in
                  > > personal terms it reflects as such, then what else can be let go
                  of
                  > > but one's sense of personal? The difficulty of my position is
                  that
                  > my
                  > > reading of it is also personal. What was the name of that worm?
                  > >
                  > > Have I complicated that beyond reason? I read what you are saying
                  > > about the shift from the words to a picture and I find myself
                  saying
                  > > that I know what you are talking about. I do not know that I do,
                  but
                  > > what you say grabs me in that way. There is a different order of
                  > > grasping things between the words and the picture. I would further
                  > > agree that your self-description of the process is much more
                  closely
                  > > aligned to SK's meaning than mine, yours probably going as far as
                  > SK's
                  > > Religiousness B, which I can only make a vague pass at.
                  > >
                  > > As I think about my vague pass at that incarnation scene, there
                  is,
                  > on
                  > > my part, a sense of contacting a mystery because of its location
                  in
                  > > "my" world. In coming out of the notion of inwardness and back
                  into
                  > > the world that one's toe gets stubbed in, that inwardness that is
                  > > solely mine transforms itself to the outward as an enclosure. I
                  > often
                  > > viscerally sense the movement from one order to another in my
                  body's
                  > > world, as it were.
                  > >
                  > > My personal description of the leap/transition complex is
                  captured
                  > in
                  > > the de-tail I offered. You have a hunch that the leap and the
                  > > transition are not the same thing, the transition being one face
                  of
                  > > the leap. I cannot say that you are wrong. I don't know. My only
                  > > rebuttal is that there is only one transition and that the only
                  > > difference is in its expression. I feel that I am correct, but the
                  > > only correctness to be found in that is that that is what I feel.
                  > > Someone who feels the opposite has that same truth, so again the
                  > worm
                  > > eats itself.
                  > >
                  > > May the force be with you! And hearing from you again in a formal
                  > > setting is music to my ears.
                  > >
                  > > Apollyon7676 (the double spirit),
                  > > Yet another pit-man
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "sorenmad"
                  <sorenmad@y...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > > Hey Willy, Mike from the pit here. I was just browsing around
                  to
                  > > > figure out how to spell "innconsummerate" and thought this
                  might
                  > be a
                  > > > better place to start than starting a new thread. So if I am
                  > > > repeating anything that may have already formed from this post
                  > please
                  > > > forgive me.
                  > > >
                  > > > I guess a good place to begin may be with the "tranny" and the
                  > leap.
                  > > > I have a hunch that the tranny is addressed in the infamous
                  page
                  > 199-
                  > > > 200 of "Works of Love" (Inluded at the end of this post) I
                  have
                  > > > another hunch that this tranny is a one time tranny, which in
                  my
                  > > > particular case came about while reading the book of genesis.
                  It
                  > was
                  > > > a sense of letting the words dissappear into a picture, because
                  > the
                  > > > words did not make sense otherwise. Amyway, this letting go
                  let
                  > me
                  > > > start a process which led to my trusting of certain historical
                  > > > documents, esp. Johns gospel, to the point where I accepted
                  that
                  > God
                  > > > had become a man. No need for inlallibility or inneracy, just
                  an
                  > ear
                  > > > for the spirit speaking through not only the scriptures, but in
                  > other
                  > > > ways that cannot be shared without making myself look rather
                  > insane
                  > > > to the un-initiated, and perhaps to the initiated in Christ as
                  > well.
                  > > >
                  > > > Im wondering how this tranition fits into your scheme of
                  things.
                  > > > From what I see here it is likely something to do with talking
                  to
                  > > > yourself! but what i am trying to figure out most of all is
                  the
                  > > > consumerability or inconsumerability of our views, asumming i
                  am
                  > > > making enough sense for you to answer.
                  > > >
                  > > > What I think I may be seeing, is that you can have your way
                  > without
                  > > > my way, but I can have my way with your way, which may b K's
                  way.
                  > > >
                  > > > One problem is that I cannot tell if you are deluded or not,
                  > because
                  > > > I don't follow what you are saying so well. Perhaps you could
                  > break
                  > > > the ice by letting my know if the leap is related to the de-
                  > tailing
                  > > > process mentioned in "another doodle" (I ahve a hunch the leap
                  > and
                  > > > the transition are not the same thing. ie.- the tranition may
                  be
                  > a
                  > > > leap, but not the only leap.
                  > > >
                  > > > the forever falling poster previously known as ABADDON, -Mike
                  > > >
                  > > > ps. this was posted without profreading for fear I would become
                  > self-
                  > > > concious and not post at all.
                  > > >
                  > > > "All human language about the spiritual, yes, even the divine
                  > > > language of Holy Scriptures, is essentially transferred or
                  > > > metaphorical language. This is quite in order or corresponds to
                  > the
                  > > > order of things and of existence, since even though man is
                  spirit
                  > > > from the moment of birth he first becomes conscious as spirit
                  > later,
                  > > > and therefore prior to this he has lived for a certain time
                  > within
                  > > > sensuous-psychic categories. The first portion of life shall
                  not,
                  > > > however, be cast aside when the spirit awakens, any more than
                  the
                  > > > awakening of spirit announces itself in sensuous or sensuous-
                  > psychic
                  > > > modes in contrast to the sensuous or sensuous-psychic. The
                  first
                  > > > portion is taken over by spirit, and, thus used, thus laid at
                  the
                  > > > base, it becomes transferred. Therefore the spiritual man and
                  the
                  > > > sensuous-psychic man say the same thing in a sense, and yet
                  there
                  > > > remains an infinite difference between what they say, since the
                  > > > latter does not suspect the secret of transferred language,
                  even
                  > > > though he uses the same words, but not metaphorically. There is
                  a
                  > > > world of difference between the two; the one has made a
                  > transition or
                  > > > has let himself be led over to the other side; whereas the
                  other
                  > has
                  > > > remained on this side. Yet there is something binding which
                  they
                  > have
                  > > > in common - they both use the same language. One in whom the
                  > spirit
                  > > > is awakened does not therefore leave the visible world.
                  Although
                  > now
                  > > > conscious of himself as spirit, he is still continually in the
                  > world
                  > > > of the visible and is himself sensuously visible; likewise he
                  > also
                  > > > remains in the language, except that it is transferred.
                  > Transferred
                  > > > language is, then, not a brand new language; it is rather the
                  > > > language already at hand. Just as spirit is invisible, so also
                  is
                  > its
                  > > > language a secret, and the secret rests precisely in this that
                  it
                  > > > uses the same language as the simple man and the child but uses
                  > it as
                  > > > transferred. Thereby the spirit denies (but not in a sensuous
                  or
                  > > > sensuous-psychic manner) that it is the sensuous or sensuous-
                  > psychic.
                  > > > The distinction is by no means directly apparent. Therefore we
                  > quite
                  > > > rightly regard emphasis upon a directly apparent distinction as
                  a
                  > > > sign of false spirituality~{!*~}which is mere sensuousness;
                  whereas
                  > the
                  > > > presence of spirit is the quiet, whispering secret of
                  transferred
                  > > > language - audible to him who has an ear to hear." (WL, Hong,
                  pp.
                  > 199-
                  > > > 200)
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Will Brown"
                  > <wilbro99@y...>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > > Passion, Rickets, and thoughts and actions before and after a
                  > > > tranny?
                  > > > > I notice that Jim has responded that he requires no counter-
                  > spin to
                  > > > > the spin presently spinning, i.e., his spin. I am more than
                  > willing
                  > > > to
                  > > > > let that be the case until such time that he sees fit to
                  resume
                  > the
                  > > > > spin-fest.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I'll answer the specifics generally and let it go at that. Do
                  I
                  > see
                  > > > > the Kgd-ian transition as "something that happens to someone,
                  > > > > something that happens irrespective of the person's spiritual
                  > > > efforts
                  > > > > and spiritual state"? Since I see the transition as
                  > conditional, the
                  > > > > leap requiring a platform from which it may rise, the notion
                  of
                  > fate
                  > > > > does not adhere to my thoughts on this matter. There is a
                  > necessary
                  > > > > ripeness and that ripeness has a quality of the whole about
                  > it.
                  > > > SK's
                  > > > > Purity of Heart is a guide to the setting of the whole
                  quality.
                  > Some
                  > > > > of his Upbuilding Discourses address the setting of the whole
                  > > > quality
                  > > > > in a more personal way by referring to the setting of it in
                  > personal
                  > > > > terms. Perhaps, if it be your desire, we could get into the
                  > > > difference
                  > > > > between passion and passion, passion being a collectiveness
                  > > > regardless
                  > > > > of which sphere it is found in.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > That ripeness may come about in another way. Suppose someone
                  > who has
                  > > > > plied the road of division for years, where each goal
                  achieved
                  > was
                  > > > > found not to be the goal that would bring the seeking to an
                  > end, the
                  > > > > goal being peace of mind, suddenly has an insight into that
                  act
                  > as a
                  > > > > whole? This comprehensive seeing would allow a reflection
                  upon
                  > the
                  > > > act
                  > > > > as a whole. If someone who is unaware of beating their head
                  > against
                  > > > > the wall continues the act long enough to see the connection
                  > between
                  > > > > the pain and the act, that insight into the whole act sets the
                  > > > > platform from which the leap may rise; in this case, the
                  > negation of
                  > > > > the act.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I would say that in Kierkegaardian terms, the act that must
                  be
                  > seen
                  > > > in
                  > > > > its entirety is the act of the temporal sense of self using
                  the
                  > > > future
                  > > > > to mold the past to fit the self it wants to reflect upon.
                  SK,
                  > in
                  > > > many
                  > > > > places, refers to the future as the problem to be solved.
                  Since
                  > the
                  > > > > future is the problem, any problem that requires the future
                  to
                  > be
                  > > > > solved is a chimera. If the temporal sense of self itself
                  > requires a
                  > > > > future to maintain itself, then we have the self as the
                  > problem, and
                  > > > > we have the SK connection. I may say more about this later,
                  the
                  > self
                  > > > > as the problem instead of the self having a problem, that is.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > However it come about that the future is exorcised, by
                  > following
                  > > > SK's
                  > > > > guide in Purity of Heart, or an insight into its falseness in
                  > the
                  > > > > matter of self-change, or collecting oneself in the
                  reflection
                  > upon
                  > > > > oneself that includes the one doing the reflecting, that
                  > temporal
                  > > > self
                  > > > > bereft of its future will show its true nature: emptiness, or
                  > want,
                  > > > in
                  > > > > want of being filled. There being no platform from which to
                  > leap,
                  > > > the
                  > > > > leap turns into a fall, a negation, and the tranny is
                  revealed.
                  > In
                  > > > > other words, when the problem of the future is solved, it,
                  and
                  > the
                  > > > > self it supports, comes to an end.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > You want that I should get personal? Of course, what I just
                  > said
                  > > > above
                  > > > > will resonate with a seeker as saying that there is no future
                  > and
                  > > > that
                  > > > > leaves them with no hope, no way out, and they will scream
                  > bloody
                  > > > > murder that I am denying life. I say that there is life after
                  > death,
                  > > > > this particular death; and that, in fact, one finally starts
                  > living.
                  > > > > Ok, I preach.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Now, there is another solution to the problem that could be no
                  > > > > solution; that being the giving up of one's future to the
                  hands
                  > of
                  > > > > another. If that other is God, the temporal self finds the
                  > fullness
                  > > > in
                  > > > > being filled with God. The difficulty here is that any doubt
                  > about
                  > > > the
                  > > > > filling brings the pain back. So that solution depends upon
                  > holding
                  > > > > fast to the answer, and defending it against all who would
                  > deprive
                  > > > the
                  > > > > holder of the holding. This is where Old Nick comes in. And
                  > this is
                  > > > > where willyb checks out; I could go on and on laying all of
                  > this
                  > > > out,
                  > > > > but this pile of words should suffice as an answer, or if not
                  > that,
                  > > > at
                  > > > > the least compost, right Ricky?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Of course, it goes without saying that anyone who has ideas,
                  > either
                  > > > > pro or con, or from outside the arena, may add their voice to
                  > this
                  > > > > thread. Who knows, there might be a 'Daniel' out there who
                  can
                  > beard
                  > > > > this particular lion in its den. Jump in; there is nothing to
                  > lose
                  > > > > except the thought of losing. ----willy_nilly
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.