I have Realized the Infinite

[Ataraxia]

One has to squint pretty hard to come to the conclusion that Kierkegaard definitively equated God and Totality, in my view. It sounds to me like you are having a bit of a bet each way, Kelly. Kierkegaard was certainly insightful and rather unique as a Christian writer but supporter of the 'house philosophy' he is not.

It is fairly easy to cherry pick certain sections of any writer as prolific as he to support a particular world view. The same can of course also be done with Jesus, or Nietzsche.

[Kelly Jones]

Perhaps what I failed to convey in my previous post, was how extremely intellectual Kierkegaard was about everything. He was extraordinarily polemical. He lived for the idea, literally. So, taking that into consideration, his ideas about God do the opposite of reifying or objectifying: he moves away from the delusion of objective reality into inwardness (understanding the unlocatability and unformableness of consciousness). He was definitely on about anti-systematising, anti-concretising, anti-securities and anti-attachments. I think the Father, or the idea of the Lover and Beloved (which his engagement to Regine seemed primarily about), were his poetic ideations to help undercut the mediocre conception of Christianity that was prevalent in Denmark at the time (e.g. go to church on Sunday, heap up wealth and prestige, etc.) I should have added that information about the context of Kierkegaard's life in Denmark.

It was likely that he had that poetic conception of God, because he was striving against so many intellectually erroneous conceptions of God. There were at least four main adversaries he spent his adult life attacking: the philosophers (academics like Hegel), the Gruntvigians (a new religious sect to which his ordained older brother belonged), the press / aristocracy / ruffian lower-classes, and the Danish state church (represented by Mynster and his replacement Martensen). All of them were in some way constructing systems of reality that he was trying to attack on the level of intellectual errors about individual existence. So it is highly likely that he used the poetic relationship to God (what I called "personal") in order to bring more attention to individuality and consciousness. He was fighting against the very popular beliefs in objective reality (what we call scientific materialism, the attempt to create a T.O.E.), the belief that social disorder is a result of historical events and not individual egotism, a sneering attitude towards humility and personal responsibility, and against the establishment, that conceived of Christianity as something grand and powerful in a worldly sense.

So, my reply to David needed this explanation. Otherwise it would be misunderstood.

.

[Kelly Jones]

Kierkegaard's journals and papers are online here, in case you would like to challenge which was his point of view as an author (and what was meant by "Christian"). He kept it secret until quite late in the piece because he didn't want to challenge the establishment directly, until Mynster died in the late-1840s. But his private papers are full of what he meant by Christianity, and what he regarded a Christian author, himself, to be on about.

.

[David Quinn]

One has to squint pretty hard to come to the conclusion that Kierkegaard definitively equated God and Totality, in my view. It sounds to me like you are having a bit of a bet each way, Kelly. Kierkegaard was certainly insightful and rather unique as a Christian writer but supporter of the 'house philosophy' he is not.

There is no question in my mind that Kierkegaard fully understood the Infinite, even at the beginning stages of his writing career. I can see it in everything he said and did. The freeness of his intellect, his depth of insight, the way he constructed his conceptual narratives to produce an ever-deepening dialectic, his sense of humour, his highly-developed sense of irony, his lack of interest in being conventional, etc. It all came from a mind that intimately knew its own source.

His approach in talking about it, however, is very different to Kevin's or my approach, in that he rarely spoke about it directly. He used words to etch around it, as it were, rather than point straight at it. I remember him once comparing this method to that of the artist who paints two trees next to each other for the sole purpose of making visible the space in between. It was that space which consumed Kierkegaard, even though all he ever talked about was trees.

It is fairly easy to cherry pick certain sections of any writer as prolific as he to support a particular world view. The same can of course also be done with Jesus, or Nietzsche.

It isn't really cherry-picking, though. It is more a case of seeing into the soul of these men and perceiving the real meaning of their words and actions.

It's a bit like meeting someone who talks about war and you know just by looking at him that he has been through it himself. It's there not only in his words, but in his eyes, his manner, his body-language, his gravitas, etc. As Kierkegaard himself said, you can always recognize the spiritual person by his limp.

-

[jupiviv]

His approach in talking about it, however, is very different to Kevin's or my approach, in that he rarely spoke about it directly.

If he understood it perfectly, he would have spoken about it clearly and directly. He was too much of an artist. His understanding was like Weininger's understanding in his last days - approaching the truth, but not quite there yet.

[Kelly Jones]

Kierkegaard had a very definite approach to the concept of authority. He wrote consistently about the level he was qualified to speak at, which was that he was being educated so he had no right to assume the position of authority. He did it deliberately in contrast to everyone else, who arrogantly assumed (mindlessly) that they knew what they were talking about, and who wished to be leaders of movements, or instigators of reformations, and other group dynamics. And yet he would never state this position publicly, because to announce it would be again to present himself as an authority. That is why he constantly wrote about being a poet, or else used pseudonyms, which conveyed his meaning indirectly (not through his own name).

In particular, he used the pseudonyms, Climacus and Anti-Climacus, who represented two positions that believed they had the right to speak, but from different angles: claiming not to be a Christian because of recognising that a Christian is 100% perfectly wise; claiming to be a Christian as one who is becoming. He did not adopt either for his own name, because his actuality was somewhere in between. It was only at the very end, when he had very little money left, and knew he would die soon, because he had been ostracised from the aristocracy and lost his chance to earn money as an ordained pastor, that he decided to speak out. But it was an extremely strenuous ordeal for him, because he wished constantly to let it be known that he was not the authority, just one who wanted to present the very basic truth that no one in Denmark was a Christian; he also was not a Christian.

.

[Kunga]

Jesus was Jewish .

[Loki]

His approach in talking about it, however, is very different to Kevin's or my approach, in that he rarely spoke about it directly.

If SK meant what you guys mean, then I find his approach utterly foolish, pretentious and emotional in nature. 99% of his readers are going to think he's referring to actual deity or cosmic consciousness, and that's just stupid. How wise is SK if he couldn't even see the glaring problems his pretentious/emotional writing style was going to cause for readers?

If I were to take a stance, I would say SK was a mystic, and like most mystics (Alan Watts, J.Krishnamurti), he had some notion of God being sentient. You know, like "cosmic consciousness" or something. To walk away from his writings and not think that, I find truly strange, even preposterous.

[Kelly Jones]

It is said that I am a slipshod writer. Well, that is a matter of opinion. I am fully convinced that there is not a Danish writer who pays as much attention to the insignificant word as I do. I write everything in my own hand twice, some parts three and four times, and in addition, something no one knows anything about, there is my meditating as I walk; before I write I have said everything aloud to myself many times — and this they call being a slipshod writer! And why? Because they have no conception of it at all, because to them an author is someone who at most spends a certain number of hours a day sitting in a room and writing and otherwise has nothing to do with his ideas. Therefore, that kind of an author needs time when he comes home to get into the spirit again — whereas I come home with the whole thing thought through and memorized, even in its stylistic form — when people read a few pages of my writing they are almost always amazed at my style — but a big book — well, how is that possible — ergo: I must be a slipshod writer. No, when one wills only one thing, wills one thing with every sacrifice, every effort — then it is possible.

In a way I can become nauseated by life, for I, who love but one thought — which a person can really be if he wills it — I constitute an epigram upon men, because their judgment of me, the fact that they really cannot understand my consistency, is tragic proof of the categories, the mediocrity, in which they live.

— Søren Kierkegaard, 1846

.

[Kelly Jones]

Nothing has changed. People go on being lazy and arrogant, preferring the easy, rather than to struggle with the difficult. "Oh," they cry, "we are not made to think! Give us a pamphlet and an aphorism once a day ---- just enough to nurse us back to sleep with a contented conscience. God forbid we should be made to spend time with someone with such unrelenting intellectual and moral discipline, and risk being educated. No, that would be too much to ask, so you must not ask it!" Is it no wonder Kierkegaard never spoke publicly or directly, but had to couch every dialectical structure in pretty stories and parables? for even when he implored idiots not to praise him, in the most polite and aesthetically pleasing way, they would turn on him with bitter words. And remember he was extremely well-known in Copenhagen ("known" meaning he was a celebrity, not that anyone understood him): he couldn't go out without being followed by street kids, having his lifestyle mocked in the papers. So try to contextualise the tension of his every communication being intricately woven with the social fabric of Copenhagen, and all the effects in the surrounding counties. He knew that there was no government: neither the King nor the Bishop dared to unsettle the moral decay built about the illusion that everyone was a Christian.

Frankly, I'm sorry I mentioned him at all in relation to Laird. Diametrically different. And wrong context intellectually, anyway; you cannot appreciate Kierkegaard by sticking him into the modern mass media's brain-emptying sound-bites. He is difficult; he is educating; he is a symbol for the path, where everything is made more and more difficult. I'm sorry that I don't have his patience, or dialectical equipage, because if I had both, I would have tried to help people understand from the beginning that his personal God was the Infinite poetically configured as having the intention of enlightening people as soon as they will the unconditioned truth.

.

[Nick]

If SK meant what you guys mean, then I find his approach utterly foolish, pretentious and emotional in nature. 99% of his readers are going to think he's referring to actual deity or cosmic consciousness, and that's just stupid. How wise is SK if he couldn't even see the glaring problems his pretentious/emotional writing style was going to cause for readers?

If I were to take a stance, I would say SK was a mystic, and like most mystics (Alan Watts, J.Krishnamurti), he had some notion of God being sentient. You know, like "cosmic consciousness" or something. To walk away from his writings and not think that, I find truly strange, even preposterous.

Say what you want about his style of writing; but a man with his depth of character and brilliant insight into the mind of man and woman was surely enlightened. I see him.

[guest_of_logic]

Robert,

That's pretty dumb Laird, really. For your analogy to make any sense, it would require that no one can ever know what the square root of 39574.187 is. That someone offers a wrong answer doesn't mean anything other than the answer is wrong. A correct answer is available.

It seems that you misunderstand me. I don't believe I've ever said that absolute truth is inevitably unknowable, merely that it seems unlikely that we can attain its knowledge, at least whilst we are humanly conscious, and that the answers that I've seen on this forum don't meet the criteria of Absolute (or Ultimate) Truth. If you want an analogy for an unknowable Absolute Truth, though, then we can stipulate that the answer must be to the square root of 2 and must be exact, and since that answer is an irrational number then it consists of an unrepresentable (and hence unknowable, to human consciousness) infinity of decimal points such that we can never obtain (know) its exact representation... yet one can still know a falser answer from a truer one.

David,

Laird: What is the square root of 4?

Rational person: 2

Laird: Wrong. There is no mention of a personal God, it doesn't feed my emotions, it doesn't give my life any meaning, it doesn't affirm my messiah-complex.....

Isn't it ironic that just a few days ago Nick accused me of caricaturisation?

I define "emotion" to be any feeling that overwhelms the mind, captures it, and enslaves it within a net of selfish, narcissistic thinking. A lack of perspective, a lack of Truth-consciousness, is always involved.

When I cycle in to town, I pass by a group of ducks who hang out by the river. Sometimes they mutter quacks as I pass. In those moments, I feel something move in me: a feeling of deep appreciation for what it means that these creatures exist at all, alive in the sunshine by the water, let alone in the unique form that they possess with the delightful sounds that they make. I don't know what exactly to call that emotion - it's a kind of joy, I suppose, mixed with agape - but whatever it is, it's an emotion, and I'm having difficulty seeing how it's "selfish" and "narcissistic".

By the way, I put this to Kevin yesterday, but I won't share his response as I don't want it to taint your own.

In these modes, the mind is too pure for joy and contentment. There is no winning in enlightenment and therefore no occasion for joy. Instead, one taps into something infinitely more amazing - namely, the very source of joy (and all other things).

Too pure for joy and contentment? Untroubled waters and all that - tell me, what about these modes makes them preferable to ("infinitely more amazing" than) joy and contentment? Joy and contentment are by definition positive experiences. I'm not saying it would necessarily be preferable to be in a constant state of joy and contentment (although it might), but why would the altogether culling of them from your diet of modes be preferable to experiencing them at least sometimes?

By the way, I don't see why joy need be predicated on "winning" - appreciation is enough.

Nick,

You say that I'm (implicitly, I suppose) making a claim to absolute truth. We're not talking about individual absolute truths, though, we're talking about Absolute Truth - the ultimate stuff. I don't care to get into a discussion as to whether your characterisation of my claim really is an absolute truth (nor whether your characterisation is accurate), but assuming for argument's sake that it is, then it's far from Absolute Truth - it's just a measly little crumb of an individual absolute truth (uncapitalised), relating to but not constituting Absolute Truth. One can know individual absolute truths without knowing Absolute Truth: 1 + 1 = 2. There, now I know absolute truth...

There is no approaching the absolute.

But Nick, David wrote a book taking a step-by-step approach.

I know you don't realize what you're doing, but I hope you can at least trust that I know when I'm being disrespected.

I'm sorry for your feeling of being disrespected. I'm just sharing my perspective. Contrary to your protestations, the house philosophy is a unique blend, and from what I can see, you are one of those who has bought into it effectively in its entirety, despite its obvious weaknesses - seemingly even ignorant of them. That, to me, is regrettable - I think you can do better. I know, though, that you don't want to hear it from me. After all, you're a conqueror holding the Holy Grail, and I'm just a grubby wretch who hasn't even begun the search.

[Ataraxia]

There is no question in my mind that Kierkegaard fully understood the Infinite, even at the beginning stages of his writing career. I can see it in everything he said and did. The freeness of his intellect, his depth of insight, the way he constructed his conceptual narratives to produce an ever-deepening dialectic, his sense of humour, his highly-developed sense of irony, his lack of interest in being conventional, etc. It all came from a mind that intimately knew its own source.

Look at selected quotes on your very own page. He regularly refers to God as "he" or "him" and speaks of "God's word"; it is clear to me at least that on some level he considered a divide between he and 'God' - it is not the work of a pantheist, in my view. If it happened once or twice one could put it down to poetic license but it is littered throughout his entire corpus.

His approach in talking about it, however, is very different to Kevin's or my approach, in that he rarely spoke about it directly. He used words to etch around it, as it were, rather than point straight at it. I remember him once comparing this method to that of the artist who paints two trees next to each other for the sole purpose of making visible the space in between. It was that space which consumed Kierkegaard, even though all he ever talked about was trees.

Fair enough. Nietzsche was often like that, too.

It should also be noted, however, that both he and Nietzsche are indeed the founding fathers, so to speak, of existentialism. A philosophy broadly eschewed 'round these parts. This fact seems to be always conveniently glossed over.

I
It isn't really cherry-picking, though. It is more a case of seeing into the soul of these men and perceiving the real meaning of their words and actions.

It's a bit like meeting someone who talks about war and you know just by looking at him that he has been through it himself. It's there not only in his words, but in his eyes, his manner, his body-language, his gravitas, etc. As Kierkegaard himself said, you can always recognize the spiritual person by his limp.

-

I can only really take your word for that. I do acknowledge he was a great thinker and personally have found him a great help in understanding reality. He was responsible for placing the subject/ individual firmly back in it's rightful position as an integral part of any complete philosophy

[Ataraxia]

Nothing has changed. People go on being lazy and arrogant, preferring the easy, rather than to struggle with the difficult. "Oh," they cry, "we are not made to think! Give us a pamphlet and an aphorism once a day ---- just enough to nurse us back to sleep with a contented conscience. God forbid we should be made to spend time with someone with such unrelenting intellectual and moral discipline, and risk being educated.
.

This appears to me to be a blatant appeal to your own perceived superiority. A quick grab for the intellectual high-ground.

Most unseemly.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...existentialism. A philosophy broadly eschewed 'round these parts.

Why do you think that? One I've tried to describe "these parts" as penetrating thought in the manner of maverick existentialists like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche combined with some Eastern schools like the Hindu Vedanta or Jnana Yoga, stripped to the core. Existentialism grew out of the quality of thought that lied at its beginning. But without the "Eastern" groundwork, some would say "mysticism", even quality thoughts grow into something irrelevant and self-indulgent.

[Ataraxia]

Why do you think that?

Because it is, in my estimation.

One I've tried to describe "these parts" as penetrating thought in the manner of maverick existentialists like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche combined with some Eastern schools like the Hindu Vedanta or Jnana Yoga, stripped to the core. Existentialism grew out of the quality of thought that lied at its beginning.

Your attempt to amalgamate existentialism - and even some post modernism - sticks out to me because it so different to David, Kevin's and Dan's approaches. It is not every day you see Taoist philopshy and Baudrillard referred to in the same sentence.You are the exception on GF that proves the rule, as it were.

But without the "Eastern" groundwork, some would say "mysticism", even quality thoughts grow into something irrelevant and self-indulgent.

Fair call. I continue to explore both, too. :)

[David Quinn]

Laird: What is the square root of 4?

Rational person: 2

Laird: Wrong. There is no mention of a personal God, it doesn't feed my emotions, it doesn't give my life any meaning, it doesn't affirm my messiah-complex.....

Isn't it ironic that just a few days ago Nick accused me of caricaturisation?

No caricature. Nail on head.

I define "emotion" to be any feeling that overwhelms the mind, captures it, and enslaves it within a net of selfish, narcissistic thinking. A lack of perspective, a lack of Truth-consciousness, is always involved.

When I cycle in to town, I pass by a group of ducks who hang out by the river. Sometimes they mutter quacks as I pass. In those moments, I feel something move in me: a feeling of deep appreciation for what it means that these creatures exist at all, alive in the sunshine by the water, let alone in the unique form that they possess with the delightful sounds that they make. I don't know what exactly to call that emotion - it's a kind of joy, I suppose, mixed with agape - but whatever it is, it's an emotion, and I'm having difficulty seeing how it's "selfish" and "narcissistic".

All sorts of narcissistic thoughts are at play here. For example:

- The sight of a peaceful, non-threatening environment making your ego feel a bit more secure.

You would have to ask yourself, would you experience the same joy if these ducks were being killed by a man shooting at them? The "uniqueness" of the situation would be the same, the fact of the ducks and the man existing at all would be the same, indeed everything is the same, except that your reaction is likely to be very different. This alone would show that the joy you experience is not related to agape at all, but is entirely narcissistic in nature.

- The ego patting itself on the back for being so amazing and special to be able to experience this joy in the first place. The initial joy of feeling more secure is thus multiplied by the feeling of being special.

- The "appreciation" you feel over the fact that these creatures exist at all, etc, is generated by the unfounded idea that "nothingness" is somehow the natural state of reality and that existing forms are therefore a miracle to behold. In other words, the joy is a product of ignorance of the nature of duality, which in turn is a product of systemic narcissistic thinking. Egotism (and emotion) thrives in unchallenged dualities.

And so on. There are probably other narcissistic factors involved which are unique to your personality and set of attachments. If you're honest enough, you should be able to seek these out for yourself.

In these modes, the mind is too pure for joy and contentment. There is no winning in enlightenment and therefore no occasion for joy. Instead, one taps into something infinitely more amazing - namely, the very source of joy (and all other things).

Too pure for joy and contentment? Untroubled waters and all that - tell me, what about these modes makes them preferable to ("infinitely more amazing" than) joy and contentment?

This is something you can only really understand by going into these modes yourself and then looking at things like joy and contentment from that perspective. From that perspective, they are seen to be prisons which have no foundation at all. "Castles in the air", as the Buddha called them. "Black holes of insanity", one could equally call them.

By the way, I don't see why joy need be predicated on "winning" - appreciation is enough.

You don't really want to see anything, Laird. That's the problem.

In any case, to the degree that appreciation involves feelings of joy, it is being driven by a form of egotistical winning. Feeling joy at seeing some ducks paddling around the sunlight is the ego reveling in the momentary conquering of its ever-present fears in life.

-

[Blair]

And furthermore, whilst Laird was tenderly a' gaping at these ducks, he might have been flattened by wayward trucks...

[Kelly Jones]

Nothing has changed. People go on being lazy and arrogant, preferring the easy, rather than to struggle with the difficult. "Oh," they cry, "we are not made to think! Give us a pamphlet and an aphorism once a day ---- just enough to nurse us back to sleep with a contented conscience. God forbid we should be made to spend time with someone with such unrelenting intellectual and moral discipline, and risk being educated.
.

This appears to me to be a blatant appeal to your own perceived superiority. A quick grab for the intellectual high-ground.

Most unseemly.

God, how wretched a slander. If you only knew what I go through to post at all. I remember all the criticisms that I post, serving it back to myself several times. Is this not how it ought to be?

Don't you know why I've been fighting against the demoralisation on this board? It's not because I want to be a head honcho, but because I see something much better, and worth fighting for. It's so valuable, and even if there is egotism in fighting for it, is that worse than remaining mediocre and afraid of improvement? And as for the accusations of self-righteousness etc., it's not my fault if there are so few people who want to head for higher ground, is it?

.

[Ataraxia]

God, how wretched a slander.

You'll live.

If you only knew what I go through to post at all.

We all are engaged in our own psychological battles. It's the nature of philosophy, right? Dare I suggest you are playing the martyr now as well?

I remember all the criticisms that I post, serving it back to myself several times. Is this not how it ought to be?

yep.

Don't you know why I've been fighting against the demoralisation on this board? It's not because I want to be a head honcho, but because I see something much better, and worth fighting for.

I wasn't suggesting you want to be head honcho. Who cares about that shite, anyway?

so few people who want to head for higher ground, is it?
.

In your opinion. In this instance 'higher ground' appears to be having the same view of Kierkergaard as you.

[David Quinn]

There is no question in my mind that Kierkegaard fully understood the Infinite, even at the beginning stages of his writing career. I can see it in everything he said and did. The freeness of his intellect, his depth of insight, the way he constructed his conceptual narratives to produce an ever-deepening dialectic, his sense of humour, his highly-developed sense of irony, his lack of interest in being conventional, etc. It all came from a mind that intimately knew its own source.

Look at selected quotes on your very own page. He regularly refers to God as "he" or "him" and speaks of "God's word"; it is clear to me at least that on some level he considered a divide between he and 'God' - it is not the work of a pantheist, in my view. If it happened once or twice one could put it down to poetic license but it is littered throughout his entire corpus.

You have to appreciate the level of Kierkegaard's sense of irony in everything that he said and did. Very rarely did he approach a matter without his mind twisting it around and folding it back on itself several times over.

Kelly highlighted this aspect earlier in the thread:

Kierkegaard had a very definite approach to the concept of authority. He wrote consistently about the level he was qualified to speak at, which was that he was being educated so he had no right to assume the position of authority. He did it deliberately in contrast to everyone else, who arrogantly assumed (mindlessly) that they knew what they were talking about, and who wished to be leaders of movements, or instigators of reformations, and other group dynamics. And yet he would never state this position publicly, because to announce it would be again to present himself as an authority. That is why he constantly wrote about being a poet, or else used pseudonyms, which conveyed his meaning indirectly (not through his own name).

His relationship with the society around him and with his readers was never straightforward. His incredible intelligence deliberately created mazes which both protected his integrity (in his eyes at least) and stimulated the minds of others. One could say that this maze-weaving was both a strength and a weakness of his - a weakness because it prevented him from going at truth more directly, and a strength because he was able to generate amazingly intricate analyses of things.

This relates to his fear of expressing himself more openly and directly, as alluded to in these sorts of passages:

- This is how one rises in the world, when a person has reached one rung of the ladder, he hankers and tries to go higher. But when a person has become involved with God, so that God truly has hold of him and uses him, this is how he rises: at every higher rung he is supposed to climb, he begs like a child to be exempted, for he well understands that, from a human point of view, suffering and wretchedness and spiritual trial mount on the same scale. How often an apostle has pleaded for himself in this way.


- God can involve himself with the human race on one of two conditions, either in such a way that individuals are found who are willing to venture out so far in hating themselves that God can use them as apostles, or in such a way that the true situation is honestly and unconditionally admitted. The latter is my primitivity.

As far as the former is concerned, this is certainly the instruction of the New Testament. But with respect to venturing out so far, the following must be noted. This is something so dreadful for a human being that it is permissible to say: I dare not.


(Taken from Venom Crystals)

One can see that Kierkegaard was far more comfortable being a "poet" (as opposed to an "apostle"), being ironical (as opposed to being plain-speaking) and a child (as opposed to being a man of authority). He doubted that he had the strength to push his spirituality beyond this. His talk about God as "other" should be seen in this light. He himself mentioned that he had far too mild a conception of God ("a grandfather in the sky") which, in his ironical way, showed that he was fully aware of what he was doing.

Only towards the end of his life, when he openly attacked the Christian religion around him in a series of pamphlets, did he leave his comfort zone and make a stab at being an apostle. And then he died of exhaustion.

His approach in talking about it, however, is very different to Kevin's or my approach, in that he rarely spoke about it directly. He used words to etch around it, as it were, rather than point straight at it. I remember him once comparing this method to that of the artist who paints two trees next to each other for the sole purpose of making visible the space in between. It was that space which consumed Kierkegaard, even though all he ever talked about was trees.

Fair enough. Nietzsche was often like that, too.

It should also be noted, however, that both he and Nietzsche are indeed the founding fathers, so to speak, of existentialism. A philosophy broadly eschewed 'round these parts. This fact seems to be always conveniently glossed over.

"Existentialism" can mean almost anything, don't you think? The existentialism of a Kierkegaard or a Nietzsche is very different from the existentialism of a Sartre or a Camus. The former involves an intelligent opening up to the fluid chaos of reality, while the latter is simply a reveling in glorified self-pity. They are poles apart. Only the French, who are a pretentious lot at the best of times, could possibly manufacture a connection between them.

I consider French existentialism, not as the intellectual descendant of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, but as a tragic by-product. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche smashed everything in their path through the sheer strength of their spiritual brilliance, while the French existentialists cried that they couldn't put the smashed pieces back together again.

-

[Ataraxia]

You have to appreciate the level of Kierkegaard's sense of irony in everything that he said and did.

That can very easily be viewed as a cop out. Whenever the philosopher isn't according with our view of what he is 'really' saying we can always attribute it to irony. I've seen it quite often in recent times at university whem PoMo's, Feminists or Neo Marxists appeal to Nietzsche to support their world view.

I'm not necessarily charging you with this but to my mind with this response you haven't given any meaningful account of why he used 'he' and 'him' so regularly if he was such the nondualist.

Very rarely did he approach a matter without his mind twisting it around and folding it back on itself several times over. One could say that this maze-weaving was both a strength and a weakness of his - a weakness because it prevented him from going at truth more directly, and a strength because he was able to generate amazingly intricate analyses of things.

This relates to his fear of expressing himself more openly and directly, as alluded to in these sorts of passages:

I'm somewhat sympathetic of that reasoning. The same could be said of Eckhart.

However....

- This is how one rises in the world, when a person has reached one rung of the ladder, he hankers and tries to go higher. But when a person has become involved with God, so that God truly has hold of him and uses him, this is how he rises: at every higher rung he is supposed to climb, he begs like a child to be exempted, for he well understands that, from a human point of view, suffering and wretchedness and spiritual trial mount on the same scale. How often an apostle has pleaded for himself in this way.


- God can involve himself with the human race on one of two conditions, either in such a way that individuals are found who are willing to venture out so far in hating themselves that God can use them as apostles, or in such a way that the true situation is honestly and unconditionally admitted. The latter is my primitivity.

As far as the former is concerned, this is certainly the instruction of the New Testament. But with respect to venturing out so far, the following must be noted. This is something so dreadful for a human being that it is permissible to say: I dare not.

(Taken from Venom Crystals)

here he is describing his battle with spirituality. Again, one has to squint pretty hard to see an argument for a pantheist view, in my opinion.

A couple of hastily gathered quotes from another Chrisitian existentialist, Karl Jaspers by way of example:

Jaspers-

-As a universal history of philosophy, the history of philosophy must become one great unity.

-Even scientific knowledge, if there is anything to it, is not a random observation of random objects; for the critical objectivity of significant knowledge is attained as a practice only philosophically in inner action.

-I discovered that the study of past philosophers is of little use unless our own reality enters into it. Our reality alone allows the thinker's questions to become comprehensible.

-Reason is like an open secret that can become known to anyone at any time; it is the quiet space into which everyone can enter through his own thought.

-To decide to become a philosopher seemed as foolish to me as to decide to become a poet.

Wisdom of the Infinite!

"Existentialism" can mean almost anything, don't you think? The existentialism of a Kierkegaard or a Nietzsche is very different from the existentialism of a Sartre or a Camus. The former involves an intelligent opening up to the fluid chaos of reality, while the latter is simply a reveling in glorified self-pity. They are poles apart. Only the French, who are a pretentious lot at the best of times, could possibly manufacture a connection between them.

I consider French existentialism, not as the intellectual descendant of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, but as a tragic by-product. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche smashed everything in their path through the sheer strength of their spiritual brilliance, while the French existentialists cried that they couldn't put the smashed pieces back together again.

-

Point taken. I agree as it happens. (Although there a few good little tidbits in Sartre,although granted they are few and far between.)

[Kelly Jones]

David, your analysis of Kierkegaard's methodology was spot-on, in my opinion. I have no quarrel with it at all. I would only wish to clarify that, in my view, it should be noted that his "weakness", the fear of expressing the truth openly and publicly, was far, far higher - by comparison to every one of us, was an enormous strength - than what most of us could realistically embody. For instance, he had virtually no private life, since he lived right in the thick of the city, in apartments opening right onto the street. He moved every few years, but his apartments were always like this. They weren't sanctuaries in leafy parks, away in some quiet secluded spot. He wasn't like the aristocrats, who lived like divinely appointed hermits. He went walking on the streets daily, and tried to spend a lot of time with everyone he met. I've looked at all his addresses on Google maps, and he literally lived in the thick of things. So imagine that kind of pressure on one who was not understood - by anyone, in any of the classes - and who had to contain himself because of the almost complete lack of education of those amongst whom he lived.

On top of this, he would not compromise in order to reach them better. This was another thing he wrote often about: where to place the standard. He emphasised that the expression of truth must at all times be pure, if one was to speak openly as an authority, and never for a moment display any slipping back into angst, bitterness, hot-headed world-saving imaginativeness, or any other demonic forms. He knew that to do so would bungle the whole thing. Related to this, was his own exploration of his own actuality, and all the positions one could take relative to being a Christian. He had spent all his life as an author exploring all those positions, not only in himself via his multitude of pseudonyms, but also through the critique against popular philosophers, academics, religious and political leaders. And he knew what was true for his own position. He could not pretend. So he was weak, but not in the sense of lacking the courage to push himself higher. He had to have the courage not to push himself any higher, because that would be pride and recklessness. I think in the end, the main reason he ventured the public attack on Christendom was because he was willing to die, as his very last journal entry (see September 25) indicates (which is deeply inspiring).

Likely as not, the reason why he was unable to go higher, may have partly been owing to his habit, during most of his life, to turn to creative writing to forget and sublimate his troubles. He kept a part of his mind as a sanctuary from the conflict, and didn't live in the midst of it. So, lacking the discipline to make himself thoroughly unhappy, and thereby empty, it was inevitable that he would lack the spiritual development that would enable him to transcend the "steaming rain".

['what most of us could possibly imagine' > 'realistically embody']
.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: God, how wretched a slander.

Andrew: You'll live.

Sure, but is your aim to add to the demoralisation on this board? Why else would you regard anyone who praises the behaviour of a truthful person, and points out the need for improvement in those who aren't truthful, as being high-and-mighty? You're perpetuating mediocrity and self-pity.

Kelly: If you only knew what I go through to post at all.

Andrew: We all are engaged in our own psychological battles. It's the nature of philosophy, right? Dare I suggest you are playing the martyr now as well?

If you only knew what I go through to post at all, you would not say it was "playing the martyr". You would not regard it as a self-pitying act to want others to have entered the discipline of solitude with earnestness. You would be only too eager to enter into an analysis of all levels of psychology, because you were deeply committed to unravelling the subtle illusions of egotism, and take onto yourself what it required.

Kelly: I remember all the criticisms that I post, serving it back to myself several times. Is this not how it ought to be?

Andrew: yep.

Kelly: Don't you know why I've been fighting against the demoralisation on this board? It's not because I want to be a head honcho, but because I see something much better, and worth fighting for.

Andrew: I wasn't suggesting you want to be head honcho. Who cares about that shite, anyway?

But you did suggest I wanted to make a grab for the intellectual high-ground and present myself as superior, and your next comment makes the same suggestion.

Kelly: so few people who want to head for higher ground, is it?

Andrew: In your opinion. In this instance 'higher ground' appears to be having the same view of Kierkergaard as you.

I have done much to show that whatever I understand of Kierkegaard's writings does not entail that I have experienced it as he has. I'm almost tempted to think you want me to lie, or hide my light under a bushel. If you want it openly and publicly: I wouldn't dare claim to approach Kierkegaard's level, even though he was far from perfect. But why should that mean that I cannot offer the categories as I see it, from my own actuality?

.

[Kelly Jones]

One can see that Kierkegaard was far more comfortable being a "poet" (as opposed to an "apostle"), being ironical (as opposed to being plain-speaking) and a child (as opposed to being a man of authority). He doubted that he had the strength to push his spirituality beyond this. His talk about God as "other" should be seen in this light. He himself mentioned that he had far too mild a conception of God ("a grandfather in the sky") which, in his ironical way, showed that he was fully aware of what he was doing.

Only towards the end of his life, when he openly attacked the Christian religion around him in a series of pamphlets, did he leave his comfort zone and make a stab at being an apostle. And then he died of exhaustion.

That's all true. But then, there was also an added meaning to being an apostle, which prevented him from taking that path:

Christian Auditing
What money is in the finite world, concepts are in the world of spirit. All transactions are conducted with them.

When it so happens that generation after generation everyone takes over the concepts he got from the previous generation — and then devotes his days and his time to enjoying this life, works for finite goals, etc. — it all too easily happens that the concepts are gradually distorted, become entirely different from what they were originally, come to mean something entirely different, come to be like counterfeit money. Meanwhile all transactions nevertheless continue to be conducted smoothly with them, which, incidentally, does not disturb men's egotistical interests (which is not the case when counterfeit money appears), especially if the concept-counterfeiting is oriented precisely toward human egotism; thus the one who is actually fooled, if I dare say so, is the other partner in the business of Christianity: God in heaven.

Yet no one wants the business of auditing the concepts. Everyone understands more or less clearly that to be employed in such a way in this business is practically the same as being sacrificed, means that a person's life becomes so impounded that he cannot follow his natural inclination to occupy himself with finite goals. No, the human thing to do is to treat the concepts as superficially as possible and to plunge into the concrete details of life the sooner the better, or in any case not to be particularly scrupulous about the concepts, not so scrupulous that one cannot move full speed into the concrete details of life.

Nevertheless auditing is needed, and more and more with each decade.

Therefore Governance must take possession of an individual who is to be used for this purpose.

Such an auditor, of course, is nothing at all like the whole chattering company of preachers and professors — yet he is not an apostle either, but rather just the opposite.

Precisely what the auditor needs is what the apostle does not really need — intellectuality, superior intellectuality — moreover, he must be extremely familiar with all possible kinds of swindling and counterfeiting, almost as if he personally were the trickiest of all swindlers — in fact, his business is to "know" the counterfeits.

Since all this knowledge is so very shady and equivocal that it could occasion the greatest possible confusion, the auditor is not treated like the apostle. Alas, no, the apostle is a trusted man; the auditor is put under the strictest supervision. Because it is so descriptive, my one metaphor for this is constantly the same. Imagine that the Bank of London became aware that counterfeit notes were in circulation — so well counterfeited that the bank despaired of identifying them with certainty and of protecting itself against future imitation. Despite all the talented bank and police personnel, there was only one with absolute talent in this area — but he was a criminal, one of the condemned. So he is used, but he is not used as a trusted man. He is placed under the most terrifying supervision: with death hanging over his head, he has to sit and handle all that mass of money, he is periodically searched, etc.

It is the same with the Christian auditor. If the apostle has the task of proclaiming the truth, the auditor has the task of discovering counterfeits, identifying them and thereby rendering them impossible. If the apostle's personal attribute is a noble and pure simplicity (which is the condition for being the instrument of the Holy Spirit), the auditor's is this shady, ambiguous knowledge. If the apostle is in the power of Governance in a univocal and wholly good sense, the auditor is completely in the power of Governance in an equivocal sense. If with all his efforts and work the apostle still has no merit before God, the auditor has even less and could not possibly gain any (were it otherwise possible), since he has a negative service to fulfill and thus is essentially a penitent — but essentially both of them are sacrificed and both are chosen in grace by Governance, for it is not in disgrace that the one is chosen as auditor. And as it begins with the apostle, the auditor obviously can come only toward the end, since he has the dissemination as a presupposition. And if the apostle has his name from being sent out because he proceeds from God outwards, the examiner's task is to penetrate the counterfeits and lead back to God.

Apostles can never come again; otherwise Christ also must be able to come again in a way different than his second coming. Christ's life on earth is Christianity. The apostle signifies: Now Christianity has been introduced; from now on you men have to take it over yourself, but with responsibility.

So mankind took it over. And even if it is an everlasting lie that Christianity is perfectible, mankind certainly displayed a mounting perfectibility — in counterfeiting Christianity.

Confronted with this counterfeiting, God — even if he wanted to (and even if there were no other hindrance) — cannot use an apostle, because through its counterfeiting Christendom has so alienated itself from God that a trusting appeal to men, if I dare put it this way, is out of the question. No, as Christendom is a counterfeiting, and since sin nowadays is primarily prudence, on the side of Governance (whom man with his counterfeiting has alienated) all is distrust. Joyous emissaries no longer come from God, any more than we hail the police as such; no, only experts in frauds come, and even these, since they in fact essentially belong to the general fraudulence, are treated by Providence as shady and equivocal characters.

Christendom today is happy and satisfied. Not infrequently we are given the impression that a new epoch is coming, new apostles are coming — because Christendom, which of course has done an excellent job, has so perfectly practised and appropriated what the apostles introduced that now we must go further. The truth is that Christendom has done the shabbiest, trickiest job possible, and to expect new apostles (if there were any truth to this idea at all) is the most confounded insolence.

.