I have tried to post an answer to this but who knows where it has gone. Due to the blessing weather, i must assume it has decided on its own to have a side trip to the country before it finally returns to the big city. Who would blaim it?
I won't repeat it here. I'll just repost the appendices:
The one who presents this ideal must be the very first one to humble himself under it, and even though he himself is striving within himself to approach this ideal, he must confess that he is very far from being it. He must confess that he is related only poetically to this ideal picture, while he (and here he differs from the ordinary conception of a poet) personally and Christianly is related to the presented picture, and that only as a poet presenting the picture is he out in front." (Armed Neutrality, Hong, p. 37)
"In his existence relation to the truth, the existing subjective thinker is just as negative as positive, has just as much of the comic as he essentially has of pathos, and is continually in the process becoming, that is, striving. Since the existing subject is existing (and that is the lot of every human being, except the objective ones, who have pure being to be in), he is indeed in the process of becoming." (CUP, Hong, p. 80; Lowrie, p. 74)
On the contrary, ethically understood, the continued striving is the consciousness of being an existing individual, and the continued learning the expression of the perpetual actualization, which at no moment is finished as long as the subject is existing; the subject is aware of this and is therefore not deluded." CUP, Hong, pp. 121-22; Lowrie, pp. 110-11)
The basic idea was that you don't need to fulfill the ideal qualification to be up to the ethical task.
There was a plenty more but it went to the country. So might this one. Except that I'll post it to the GP too and also to the KT just like in the good old time of the middle ages!
--- In email@example.com, "jimstuart46" <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
> I think that moderating an internet forum is a difficult ethical
> task particularly an internet forum dedicated to the thought of
> Soren Kierkegaard who wrote at the extremity of passion eliciting
> personal attacks from others, and in turn attacking others personally
> (admittedly after they had died.
> Both Jim R and Don, who have had the experience of moderating
> Kierkegaard forums, state that they would not hesitate to warn,
> moderate, and even ban, individuals who launched persistent personal
> attacks against others.
> If I were a moderator I would be more liberal. I would never ban an
> individual for making persistent personal attacks on myself. (Note
> the word `never' Médéric.) I would only warn, moderate, or even ban
> an individual who launched persistent personal attacks on another if
> that other were, in my estimation, a vulnerable person who may self-
> harm as a result of such a persistent attack.
> It is worth noting that I have read of more than one young suicide
> who had developed a passionate interest in Kierkegaard's writings
> before taking his own life.
> My experience of internet forums is that there is often pressure on a
> moderator to moderate or ban. What is one to do with the mentally ill
> individual who uses the forum to rage wildly against all and sundry,
> issuing threats and libellous accusations, writing nothing of
> relevance to the forum topic?
> What does one do with the person who posts 30 posts each day?
> In many ways the internet forum moderator has a thankless task, and I
> have never possessed a burning ambition to be an internet forum
> Further, despite Mederic's clear desire that I put myself forward, I
> consider myself to be less than ideally qualified for such a role as
> (1) I am not a Christian and (2) I do not understand Danish.
> Of course if Jim R is finding the task onerous and unrewarding, and
> he is looking for another individual to share or take up the burden,
> I would consider putting my name forward to Ron Chris.
> I would of course wish to understand the extent of my powers. Jim R
> talks of me possibly being "a moderator". This suggests there would
> be more than one moderator. And what if the moderators disagreed over
> an individual? I think I would like absolute power or no power at all!
> Jim Stuart