About the only two who are "seeing" this correctly, are *Pye and Alex.Dennis Mahar wrote: this failure of Alex,
has David declare,
PS - Sorry, Alex .. on the above .. *ladies before gentlemen :-)
About the only two who are "seeing" this correctly, are *Pye and Alex.Dennis Mahar wrote: this failure of Alex,
has David declare,
I don't really know why you would say 'weirdly' when 'predictably' might be a better word (from your and from other's perspectives).Pye wrote: Weirdly, Alex, this rolls around to you, and why I sometimes find it angular to talk to you. I'm thinking you are caught up in language systems as systems; types of thought as types, and that you don't want to do anything with philosophy. As much healthy skepticism as you apply, your focus is more on the how of speech, its fascinating forms and slipperies, and not on the world it's seeking to abstract. This makes you so much more about speakers, persons, and speech ways - your "angle-in." :) True as the private circumstances of those speaking-selves are, they are also conscious-of something, and trying to look at it together; trying to get you to look, I'm thinking, for all your years posting here . . . . :) It's probably what others have estimated in you as a misdirected gaze. S'not that you can't think. S'where you have restricted your gaze . . . . :)
there's no doubt jewish/christian humanism exists.But the real core here, and the thing you can really focus on is that I am articulating a defense of Jewish and Christian humanism
Second point. Critique, fine. No problem. But critique leveled without actually dealing with (and I am truthful here) 95% of all the statements I have made!
Well that's refreshing to outright hear. Some people are probably into what you articulate and defend, and some people are not. That's just the way these things go, isn't it? If you really want to forward discourse of a non-combative variety, then you wouldn't demand everything else here be sick and silenced, or demand others to be attentive to you whilst you put it forth. If you really know what you know, Alex - where's your grace? Understanding is, well, understanding. It's not impatience; it's not frustration; it isn't needy; it just goes forth as such . . . .Alex writes: But the real core here, and the thing you can really focus on is that I am articulating a defense of Jewish and Christian humanism.
I’m thinking not one of your questions, comments, or even undercuts above presents us with an opportunity to go anywhere but back down the same dark hallway again. I’m here on spare time, Alex, and would not wish to squander being here by making ‘why’ I’m here the only question. i.e. making the forum itself the topic of conversation.Alex: But one other thing which it would be fair to take into.consideration: this is a monomaniacal forum. It is expressed in this sense. It condones driving and singular ideation! It is NOT a.'philosophy' forum in the sense that you desire, that is only pretention, a vain declaration. In relation to the forum (not you) I.have defined an approach and a.response that yet has been extremely varied and even creative. It is not fair to insinuate that I somehow rupture on-going.conversations or these 'other things that people want to talk about'. It.seems to me that 'everyone' only speaks about their area of interest...or fixation.
Are you.similarly.fixatied, Pye? Or are you a 9-5 philosopher?
Not a single “duh” slips by you, Alex :)Pye: So this morning, the little space I’ve had to write has been taken up on some same-old. Perhaps in the next opportunity, I can get back to some of the existential things that are really the present impetus.
Alex: What you have done with your time is your problem, not mine! The way I see it---and you are very free to do this mind you---you yourself subverted potential communication. As to 'opportunities': we make our own opportunities.
To enter a new approach I offer a bit from Max Nordau, a Zionist author and leader in the 19th century, admitted, it's a bit out of context but I happened to read it today so here you go:Talking Ass wrote:
- With this in mind: since I first logged on here---into this environment of 'philosophy' but moreover of religion---I noticed principally the 'violence'. The attacks. The ridicule. The establishment of hierarchies with the very clearly established sense of 'we have and represent knowledge; you others, and you who don't agree, are lower level beings'
- Because if we were honest we would all realize what 'in truth' we are doing and stop playing games. Then people might actually build bridges.
- But what I am essentially doing, or trying to do, is to use language and ideas defensively.
- I am articulating a defense of Jewish and Christian humanism. If there is a crime being committed here by me, this is the crime!
- if it doesn't ring, and if there is no value-ringing, I am inclined to see it as 'destructiveness-in-operation'.
I think the best advice ever given to you at this forum was - surprisingly perhaps - from retiring Tomas: here, here and elsewhere: to move to Israel. But what is the connection to the above? Does it need explaining? I hate to do the think work for others.Max Nordau wrote:The emancipated Jew is insecure in his relations with his fellow-beings, timid with strangers, suspicious even toward the secret feeling of his friends. His best powers are exhausted in the suppression, or at least in the difficult concealment of his own real character (...) he has never the satisfaction of showing himself as he is in all his thoughts and sentiments. He becomes an inner cripple, and externally unreal, and thereby always ridiculous and hateful to all higher feeling men, as is everything that is unreal. All the better Jews in Western Europe groan under this, or seek for alleviation. [- from: Address at the First Zionist Congress (Basle, August 29, 1897)]
MN wrote: "If I despised myself, it would be no compensation if everyone saluted me, and if I respect myself, it does not trouble me if others hold me lightly."
MN wrote: "The artist writes, paints, sings or dances the burden of some idea or feeling off his mind."
"Nordau was an example of a fully assimilated and acculturated European Jew. He was married to a Protestant Christian woman and, despite his Hungarian background, he felt affiliated to German culture, writing in an autobiographical sketch, 'When I reached the age of fifteen, I left the Jewish way of life and the study of the Torah... Judaism remained a mere memory and since then I have always felt as a German and as a German only'."
The not-very-hidden subtext "here" is the issue and question of self. Perhaps at various stages in history the Jews as cultural-ethical group might have functioned metaphorically as "ego", being by definition not religious or as Werner Sombart wrote quite insightful: "as soon as a strong consciousness of the ego attaches itself to the predominating intellectuality in the thinking being, he will tend to group the world round that ego. In other words, he will look at the world from the point of view of end, or goal, or purpose. His outlook will be Ideological, or that of practical rationalism".Talking Ass wrote:The issue and question of the Jewish contribution (or poison?) really does seem a subtext here.
What's with the capitalization of "Self"? I only see selves in the world, individual processes who come to know themselves as such by the crystalline circumstances of their private births and deaths.Dennis wrote:
The situation with Alex is fundamentally stupid.
He thinks emptiness means annihilation of Self.
Of course, it means Self lacks inherent existence.
If you don't exist from your own side,Non-inherency is a useful thing to realize, but it does nothing to mitigate these original circumstances of individual rising and passing (a self)
Keeping yourself here . . . .Dennis writes:
If you don't exist from your own side,
depend for your existence.
what the fuck are you accountable for?