Harry Pollard wrote:
>
> Brad,
>
> You assume too much about personal desires (what other kinds are there)?
[snip]
> So, when you next look at the first assumption of human behavior "that
> man's desires are unlimited" try not to think of people acquiring five
> Cadillacs, or buying 6 companies. Think instead of a person perhaps sitting
> alone in the middle of the night, trying desperately to complete his desire
> - a perfect love poem.
[snip]
Why do you describe something highly inflamatory (I do not
think I am the only person on this list who thought
you were talking about some kind of insatiability built
into the human condition), and then when everybody
thinks that's what you mean, you say all you want to
do is lie in a meadow and try to craft a poem?
What is the reason for this misleading rhetorical conceit? I'm
not surprised by this sequence. I have long distinguished
between deploying categories descriptive of human
existence in a (1) taxonomic (even the least
perception presumes *some* interest in its object --
even if it's just the "interest" of being totally
bored with the thing) vs an (2) emphatic way
(having a focused passion for
studying the particular object one sees).
Heidegger said that Care is constitutive of human existence,
but most of us would not speak of a terrorist's attention
to killing his victims as "care" in any nurturing sense....
(The trahscendental/empirical distinction....)
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Try to
say it in a way that minimizes possibilities for
miscommunication. And when miscommunication does
occur, try to remedy it ASAP, not after
you've watched a lot of people
unnecessarily go far astray.
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
