Any opinions?
http://lancek4.wordpress.com/2014/06/20 ... nt-part-2/
The Significant Event.
-
Bill Wiltrack
- Posts: 5456
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Contact:
Re: The Significant Event.
.
You seem to be unfocused.
The piece starts out without clear intent & your article doesn't really have a clear supported conclusion.
You bring too much, too many aspects into one short piece.
.
You seem to be unfocused.
The piece starts out without clear intent & your article doesn't really have a clear supported conclusion.
You bring too much, too many aspects into one short piece.
.
Re: The Significant Event.
That is because each post is a segment of the larger essay. But perhaps you could point out one specific point that is lost on you and then I can address it with referring you to where it is discussed or then I would really know where I am lacking. For example, how is the 'unfocused' manifested. Please. This is why I need people to read. Many people do comprehend it; I want to hear more from the people who do not.
Can you give me a specific example of where you become lost, instead of expressing your general opinion?
Can you give me a specific example of where you become lost, instead of expressing your general opinion?
Re: The Significant Event.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the ideas that Are presented in this segment?
-
Bill Wiltrack
- Posts: 5456
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Contact:
Re: The Significant Event.
.
I made some general observations about your article.
I did not make any specific statements because if someone were just rambling in front of me and they didn't go anywhere with their ramblings, how could I chose a specific spot or statement to critique?
It's ALL bullshit. Take a hard look at your opening sentence AND your closing statement. Everything in between is like you threw words at a wall...
No one that reads you piece is able to comprehend it. That's because you are unable to comprehend it.
If you want a specific - I would say, in the future, do not respond to your own writings using phony monikers as if you were another person or persons. It's sophomoric, obvious, and makes any statement you make in the future clouded by a really sick scent of weirdness.
.
I made some general observations about your article.
I did not make any specific statements because if someone were just rambling in front of me and they didn't go anywhere with their ramblings, how could I chose a specific spot or statement to critique?
It's ALL bullshit. Take a hard look at your opening sentence AND your closing statement. Everything in between is like you threw words at a wall...
No one that reads you piece is able to comprehend it. That's because you are unable to comprehend it.
If you want a specific - I would say, in the future, do not respond to your own writings using phony monikers as if you were another person or persons. It's sophomoric, obvious, and makes any statement you make in the future clouded by a really sick scent of weirdness.
.
Re: The Significant Event.
Bill, I see that over the past year you have resorted from your usual kind of passive but often interesting assertions to now you have picked up on the usual manner of discussion here on PN and resorted to plain insult. I am sorry the riff raff have worn you down.
I suppose your are referring to that it appears that I was a person who came upon this blog. There was no intension to deceive. I thought the simple asking of opinion was an indicator that It was my own, and I figured that people would see my name here and then see my blog, user name, as showing the same person. I figured I would leave the commentary to be formed on what people had to say of its content, instead of me demanding my own agenda of how the convernsation should go.
As to the first and last sentence. The beginning draws how faith is established in the True Object. The last paragraph sums what this means and that thus the issue at hand is not about situating True objects, becuase such Objects are conventional, again talked about in the segment, and that the true issue of reality is about meaning and significance.
But it is a segment of a larger essay, so I admit not all of the ideas are fully elaborated in part2. I figure that I don't really like reading 50 some page blogs, so I would chop it up.
Now, perhaps with that in mind as a primer, you could offer me some constuctive criticism. Your assertion my essay makes no sense is itself rubbish, since there are many people who have been capable of discussing matters with me about it. One cannot selectively deny things just because they don't like them and still be speaking of truth; that is, unless ones truth is established in faith, which is a concern of this essay, you may or may not have noted.
I suppose your are referring to that it appears that I was a person who came upon this blog. There was no intension to deceive. I thought the simple asking of opinion was an indicator that It was my own, and I figured that people would see my name here and then see my blog, user name, as showing the same person. I figured I would leave the commentary to be formed on what people had to say of its content, instead of me demanding my own agenda of how the convernsation should go.
As to the first and last sentence. The beginning draws how faith is established in the True Object. The last paragraph sums what this means and that thus the issue at hand is not about situating True objects, becuase such Objects are conventional, again talked about in the segment, and that the true issue of reality is about meaning and significance.
But it is a segment of a larger essay, so I admit not all of the ideas are fully elaborated in part2. I figure that I don't really like reading 50 some page blogs, so I would chop it up.
Now, perhaps with that in mind as a primer, you could offer me some constuctive criticism. Your assertion my essay makes no sense is itself rubbish, since there are many people who have been capable of discussing matters with me about it. One cannot selectively deny things just because they don't like them and still be speaking of truth; that is, unless ones truth is established in faith, which is a concern of this essay, you may or may not have noted.
Last edited by lancek4 on Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Significant Event.
A quick reads suggests a type of Hegelian dialectic. Did you have this in mind when you wrote it?
Re: The Significant Event.
Ginkgo - for sure, such a discussion on truth and reality should have something of Hegel in it. Not specifically here though. I do not address his dialectic here; but indeed there is something dialectical involved. I lean more toward what Kiekegaard has to say of dialectic.
Re: The Significant Event.
I think Kierkegaard is a type of response to Hegel. I'll have a good read of it.lancek4 wrote:Ginkgo - for sure, such a discussion on truth and reality should have something of Hegel in it. Not specifically here though. I do not address his dialectic here; but indeed there is something dialectical involved. I lean more toward what Kiekegaard has to say of dialectic.
Re: The Significant Event.
Thanks G. I appreciate whatever input you, and others, might have. Even Bills is welcomed.
)
)Re: The Significant Event.
I think politics has always been a collective enterprise, it is a method whereby a group of individuals or an single individual makes decisions about how other people are to live their lives. Applying Kierkegaard's ideas to the political process is interesting, but problematic. Kierkegaard's dialectic is a process that tells us how the individual should make decisions concerning their lives rather than trying to influence the lives of other people. Kierkegaard would say our decisions are not based on any rational process, but are the result of faith.lancek4 wrote:Thanks G. I appreciate whatever input you, and others, might have. Even Bills is welcomed.
It seems to me that such a theory would be opposed to any sort of political realism, however I see an existentialist explanation for politics falling into the trap of political realism. The attempt by the individual to accumulate as much power and influence as they can by the power of "veto".
Do you see this as a problem?
Re: The Significant Event.
Funny; that emoticon that appeared at the end of the Bill sentence is not the one that I thot I put. I meant to put a happy face 
that one that appears is like...unhappy startled. That's definitely not what I meant to put.
-
You know, to have a new voice giving me input is like a breath a fresh air. I do. It know what I say until others tell me what they got from it. "Where two go, one sees before the other". The people I do engage with do so along a slightly different dynamic. I need to know where I lack in my presentation, not always where I am succeeding. Thank you.
-
The only problem I have with such an analysis is that the power to which I refer is not one of effective agency; or rather, that such a power is of agency and so is exactly real. And thus the polemic I am attempting to reveal by the veto.
I agree with your small statements on K. But my opinions on K tend to disagree with what commentary I have read of him. From what little commentary I have read, mostly by Hannay, but some others, they tend to associate K's concern with the individual, as you have indicated. This is not necessarily what I disagree with, but rather the overdetermination that informs what an individual is, which thereby places K in a position to be speaking to the 'inner person', about spirituality.
Indeed this may be the case; of course all of his Christian dialogues and topics. I see this vehicle as somewhat incidental; that is,what he is saying about Christianity nullifies that Christianisty even exists as we know it -- like there should be this real or true Christianity as opposed to what we commonly know of it. Of course then he is taken to be speaking of spiritual things, like the individual.
I am not entirely sure how you got politics out of what you read; I am using an analogy of a governing body; perhaps that is where you got this.
So far as faith: yes, I agree with K, but again with a caveat.
I would not say I am attempting a comment on how reality functions except that is it of conventional faith. I would not say I am a realist or idealist or anything like that. I would say my essays concerns necessary truth.The individual is a real object. By this move I am in effect taking up where K could not go: he could not have the faith of Abraham, because he was stuck in a particular situation where faith is needed to bridge the gap that is a part of the essential structure of reality. "Faith makes true", is an operative statement. Therefore, in effect, I am taking up the gap that constitutes the problem inherent in the meaning that is conveyed by the situation 'rational process' and 'result of faith'. His problem was because he viewed reality as a One Truth that consists of the universal and what may be beyond the universal, the 'suspended'. I do not argue upon or toward a One truth of reality. In fact I would say that K was irony incarnate, the "Master" of irony, because he could not complete the problem presented in his irony, except through faith.
I thus use the idea of the veto as a means to express how such a gap might operate.
that one that appears is like...unhappy startled. That's definitely not what I meant to put. -
You know, to have a new voice giving me input is like a breath a fresh air. I do. It know what I say until others tell me what they got from it. "Where two go, one sees before the other". The people I do engage with do so along a slightly different dynamic. I need to know where I lack in my presentation, not always where I am succeeding. Thank you.
-
The only problem I have with such an analysis is that the power to which I refer is not one of effective agency; or rather, that such a power is of agency and so is exactly real. And thus the polemic I am attempting to reveal by the veto.
I agree with your small statements on K. But my opinions on K tend to disagree with what commentary I have read of him. From what little commentary I have read, mostly by Hannay, but some others, they tend to associate K's concern with the individual, as you have indicated. This is not necessarily what I disagree with, but rather the overdetermination that informs what an individual is, which thereby places K in a position to be speaking to the 'inner person', about spirituality.
Indeed this may be the case; of course all of his Christian dialogues and topics. I see this vehicle as somewhat incidental; that is,what he is saying about Christianity nullifies that Christianisty even exists as we know it -- like there should be this real or true Christianity as opposed to what we commonly know of it. Of course then he is taken to be speaking of spiritual things, like the individual.
I am not entirely sure how you got politics out of what you read; I am using an analogy of a governing body; perhaps that is where you got this.
So far as faith: yes, I agree with K, but again with a caveat.
I would not say I am attempting a comment on how reality functions except that is it of conventional faith. I would not say I am a realist or idealist or anything like that. I would say my essays concerns necessary truth.The individual is a real object. By this move I am in effect taking up where K could not go: he could not have the faith of Abraham, because he was stuck in a particular situation where faith is needed to bridge the gap that is a part of the essential structure of reality. "Faith makes true", is an operative statement. Therefore, in effect, I am taking up the gap that constitutes the problem inherent in the meaning that is conveyed by the situation 'rational process' and 'result of faith'. His problem was because he viewed reality as a One Truth that consists of the universal and what may be beyond the universal, the 'suspended'. I do not argue upon or toward a One truth of reality. In fact I would say that K was irony incarnate, the "Master" of irony, because he could not complete the problem presented in his irony, except through faith.
I thus use the idea of the veto as a means to express how such a gap might operate.
Re: The Significant Event.
Any comments? Rebuttals ? Suggestions?
Re: The Significant Event.
At risk of exposing my density - I just saw that if one reads this part 2 by itself, it does seem like a political philosophy type. 
. It seems people are reading it, but saying nothing.
. It seems people are reading it, but saying nothing.Re: The Significant Event.
lancek4 wrote:At risk of exposing my density - I just saw that if one reads this part 2 by itself, it does seem like a political philosophy type.
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I just read the bit you posted and I assumed it was political philosophy. Perhaps I also should have read the other chapters as well.
I would imagine that your idea of significant event is a type of awareness that somehow transforms the individual in some way. However, I'm not sure about the role of "veto" and how it fits in with significant events.