KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA60 (Grandpierre)

Commentary 18 (to C17, Nixon)

( FUNDAMENTALS, ETC )
by Glenn C Wood
12 January 2004, posted 25 January 2004

As a result of Greg Nixon's critique of my contributions, I set about reviewing the Forum looking for contumelious signs in my comments for which I should apologize if requested -- which seems unlikely when tit for tat concepts are fair. I looked at my pieces from GN's possible perspective, and some of GN's, recalling when I first started reading GN's comments how it seemed clear there was an obsequiousness manifested, as in one who needs to feel part of something, or wanting to stand next to someone in uniform. Some of GN's comments are: Muller was "straight as an arrow" and references like "Our" point and "I .. again agree 100% on each point" and in his book-in-process "I even mention your MIR ... giving you a footnote" and "we are in full agreement ..." It had reminded me of someone in love.

It isn't too hard to see that there was no further need to read GN's contributions. One only needed to read Muller's, for there was ample reason to expect GN was, in fundamentalists words, in HM's amen corner.

A review of GN's Personal Report (Tucson 2002) showed a lamenting over good manners displayed in public, that such was "negative" and that he missed the vigor of some encounters previously experienced. That complaint doesn't seem to match his criticism of my "arch" and "jeremiad." So one is left with making sense of it, and the sense I make of it is: (First) perhaps he would like encounters but not with Jaspers nor ken.

After reviewing some of the stuff written after the above quotes, it is easy to see why he would like to eliminate KJ from any dialogue. For (Secondly) his theological comments to Archambeault reveals the possible ground of caution in approaching the theist, KJ. Though that might be the case, I cannot accommodate GN's request to discontinue referencing KJ in the Forum. If it were not for KJ being reflected in it I probably would not be involved. It's like philosophy, everybody declares a philosophy one way or another, so the KJF reflects one way or another on KJ. However, I've made a case elsewhere that one cannot appropriate Jaspers philosophy without bringing selfhood along. He writes that way, as he has said.

And, (thirdly) GN has declared in not the kindest words an intolerance for fundamentalistic thinking, and KJ shows a balanced view of Biblical religion. GN seems to want to solo on the Forum, would prefer to omit "Dr." Jaspers and therefore have less "trouble in getting to Solla Sollo" (One of Seuss' book).

If one could review all that I had contributed to the forum it should be clear enough that my primary mission is to defend the name of KJ against those who would like to make him the least of influences, or misrepresent him intentionally or not. If GN cannot grasp the need for that in view of principalities, forces needing personages to harvest for the institutional threshing machines, than, I can only suggest that he research for himself. For, it is not enough to know the possible interpretations of words, but one must put whole life's experiences into the interpretation as well.

KJ's works are as available to GN, and if disagreements are found then let us discuss it. It's quite possible that our individual perspectives might result in something meaningful.

In all fairness to GN, after finishing the review of his Forum comments, which I'd not bothered to read as stated above, but have now read, I was surprised to see the lucidity in which he pointed out the limitation of HM "0-D". But it seems GN wants HM all to himself to criticize. However, I had done that already with some use of KJ as authority which in effect gave credit to sources outside and prior to my own views. In so far as they go GN's exceptions to HM "0-D" are precursored in Jaspers, and the Bible for that matter, and most certainly in my work several decades ago and in the Forum. That (fourthly) is the windmill GN attacks. I had more wind to consider than GN, for there was the problem of how to reveal the dangers of "0-D," while conserving the primary sources of the ideas being trespassed, e.g., the Bible's imagless God, and KJ as an updated, systematic, and disciplined source.

That need GN seems to have for togetherness with an other, a Thou to stand behind, at the expense of someone else is showing up now in the bold repetition of HM's already posted question regarding my own personal views on "evolution." I'm trying not to stand behind KJ but stand up for him in as much as he is dead and his name is on a placard.

It's advantageous to minimize another's comments which when understood not only show the target was seen and hit sooner, but in such a way as to include all that is felt real but less conspicuously clear and distinct ? However I thank GN for bringing me to take another view of his outstanding later discussions with HM.

--------------------------------

Glenn C Wood