[MD] clarice-silence of the lambs

[Fam. Kintziger-Karaca]

Group, all (ham)

Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
reply-type=original

Hi Adrie --


> Agree on sourdre, Ham.
>
> source(en) =source in French, equal meaning, but pronounced
> in a different way. derived from surgere (latin) but agree on
> to spring forth....."surgere". This matches.
> [snip]
> "What are things in themselves Clarice,......what are things
> in their nature?"  These memory events are only triggering my
> rememberance , if i read a good rhetoric.
>
> As you did some re-editing , (thx) i will slightly alter one of yours.
>
> "Quote Ham, "
> "These are only speculations on my part, of course,
> but they seem to make sense of the empirical fact that life
> is an individual experience, despite the need for a
> primary source to support it."
>
> "Adrie"
> Empirical knowledge/acceptance/protokol that life is
> an individual experience, despite the Fact and the need
> for a primary source to produce and support it.
> This counts and is about valid for human life.
>
> Different in the animal kingdom, for example, intermediares
> between animals and plants. -corals, ...".primary source to
> produce and support it", but deviating away on individual
> expierience, as corals are colonys of individuals, whereby
> what we see is is only the representation of a group [of]
> individuals, leaving out "individual experience.
> Or take a man of war for example....
>
> "What are things in themselves, Clarice?"

I have no problem with your "translation", but I'm not clear on the point 
you're trying to make.  I agree that organic species that lack cerebral 
faculties seem to behave as colonies, hives, or "living masses" without a 
sense of individuality.  I happen to believe that, apart from the survival 
instinct of non-primates and lower level organisms, man is unique in 
possessing a sense of Value.

What this has to do with "things in themselves" eludes me.  Are you saying 
that animals are more like "objects" than are human beings?  (But, of 
course, human beings are objects of experience to us, too.)  Incidentally, 
just who is Clarice -- a female version of Kant? -- and where does this 
quote come from?

> Ps, after retracting some of the earlier older postings,
> i took a sneak peak, a snapshot on some conflicting
> Joe/ham matters, i chose not too take side.

I'm flattered that you would review my earlier posts.  (I do this every once 
in awhile to see if I've made any progress ;-).  Joe Maurer has a keen mind 
and has come up with some perceptive ideas, despite his obsession with 
numbers and mathematics (an SOM preoccupation).  At one time I thought he 
would be my first "convert" to Essentialism, but it appears he's more 
interested in working out his own philosophy.

Not sure about you, though, Adrie.  I'll know when we reach a point of 
disagreement.  It's bound to come before long.

Thanks for the interest you've shown thus far.

Essentially yours,
Ham

Quote- Hannibal lector , in 'silence of the lambs,' 
"What are things in themselves, Clarice,...... what are things in their nature?"

Lector was taking a view in the human mind, clearly showing in the movie the ability to predict mindpatterns.
the ability to predict behaviour in thinking.Lector showed to be in the brain of Clarice.
he predicted Clarice's feelings by making the perfect balance between ratio/irratio, the balance between empathy/sympathy,
the balance between intellect/sense.
All in only one sentence, pure briljance, pure essence, what are things in their essence?, without using this word.

i was referring to your essentials, things in their nature, and of course thinking that  "the silence of the lambs",
is commonly known, common goods so to speak....my mistake , no prob.You schould view it, very good movie.

-earlier posts-
Did review all off you, guys.
and yes, indeed ,in a brief reflection on your embedded question, you show progress in a professional way, nice way, path of growth.
To give you a fast impression- i think you can be an author,and not only for "essentials", your a good narrator.
"Quote Ham"
Not sure about you, though, Adrie.  I'll know when we reach a point of 
disagreement.  It's bound to come before long.

well, disagreement, i like disagreement , if and when it seems to serve a purpose.
A disagreement needs to be a constructive disagreement,or, if congruence is absent, it still needs to make sense.
If and when you disagree with my , just say so , no problem, i can even accept  if you don't want to inform me on the reason why.

i strongly oppose to disagreements just because of the disagreement, disagreement pur sang.
I do not accept in any way when my time is lost on nonsense.
statement of the day 'nonsense leads to nonsense'

Quote Ham,  I agree that organic species that lack cerebral 
faculties seem to behave as colonies, hives, or "living masses" without a 
sense of individuality.  I happen to believe that, apart from the survival 
instinct of non-primates and lower level organisms, man is unique in 
possessing a sense of Value.

"Adrie"
i'm going to set the above aside for a while and think about it , i think i disagree.
for example , instinct resides in the mind , the brain,normal non-primates/lower level organisms do not have a brain,
but their instinct helps them to survive, take the survivalinstinct away, and the pattern will come to a halt on the long run..

instinct, lack of braincells,no brain-no instinct, i will think about this one also. 
if i have some time to think!. I will reflect on the item.I'm always short of time.

Thinking in clusters is one of my patterns, probably you can see this in my postings,there is no need to analyse this.

Okay, this is it for now, feel free to interact.
Adrie