Rowy
Drinker of Kegs, Slayer of Fish & Ruiner of Good F
- Joined
- 3/10/11
- Messages
- 1,790
- Reaction score
- 227
Maybe........Ducatiboy stu said:Can we at least have a maybe option
Maybe........Ducatiboy stu said:Can we at least have a maybe option
Perhaps?Rowy said:Maybe........
TidalPete said:Perhaps?
Perhaps but who knows??Ducatiboy stu said:Will need to form a committee that of course would be impartial or imextract
If you think using the word 'sublime' in a sentence without mentioning Kant or Burke yet somehow eloquently dealing with the similarities between the two distinct ideas without once conflating them is remotely clever, then I suggest you vote 'No' and save Lecterfan, yourself and I the trouble by avoiding any Wittgensteinianesque rule-following paradox. Instead, perhaps postulate that a negative vote in all instances means something for all and nothing for none and thus the negativity itself is negated by an underlying, yet undeniable a priori positivity which, in fact suggests only 'yes' could be the answer.TasChris said:Where is Lecterfan with his clever word games. Surely he can clarify the complexities for us
That's ******.Lecterfan said:I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.
The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.
To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.
While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.
YMMV.
Reported.Lecterfan said:I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.
The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.
To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.
While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.
YMMV.
TL;DR; Wearing a cowboy hat reroutes blood from the concise part of the frontal lobe.Lecterfan said:I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.
The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.
To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.
While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.
YMMV.
I already responded to this.Lecterfan said:I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.
The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.
To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.
While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.
YMMV.
What is often forgotten by those who haven't read the lost Socratic Polemics volumes (in particular the section on proto-nihilism) is that the Zarathustrian archetype was, is and always will be, interested in the construct, both physical and metaphysical, of the shoe and its symbol of both progress and fuitlity - a dualism therefore created between the purposeful and the purposeless.Lecterfan said:I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.
The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.
To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.
While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.
YMMV.
**** eh.... wish I had said that!Lecterfan said:I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.
The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.
To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.
While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.
YMMV.