Dear all

I might have been too harsh and blunt.  I should like to clarify my 
position.

Ever since I remember myself I am zealously and religiously (as the only 
religious affiliation I have ever known) devoted to, and about to complete 
now a dedicated heuristic tool for this, to an individualistic firsthand, 
autonomous, self-creating Ontological narrative and free expression.

As a trained and practicing clinician and theoretician of human existence 
(critical/analyst and constructive), I have practiced and advocated the 
phenomenon that individuals know best and are the best evaluators of what 
makes them tick.  This is the sole rigour that personally I subscribe to.

I have been extremely zealous, passionate and protective of fighting hard 
and taking personal risks at letting individuals define and construct 
themselves/ourselves and not to attempt to interfere, mediate, ground, 
theorise, model or conceive them/us in a prefixed [model] manner.

I am getting older and very much exhausted now as I am about to make public 
my heuristics of human existence, after twelve years of working at it from 
every angle feasible, but my adolescent defiance and youth remains the same 
as when I started (more than twenty years ago).

I still shout, kick and scream and throw tables. And say Any attempts to 
interfere with, to restrain, to speak on behalf of, to standardise, to 
conceive and theorise an individual's engagement with his/her Ontology is 
Objectifying.   It is not for human beings who are subjects not objects.
We are not atoms, molecules and cells that are grounded by rules and 
structures.

We are human subjects struggling to lead the most appropriate meaningful and 
fulfilled existence for ourselves.  It is our consistent self-evaluation of 
what gives us personal fulfilment, Ontological security, well-being, 
gratification, self-respect that defines our Ontology.  I do not think we 
are collective.  Gratification, empowerment and fulfilment is 
individualistic, personal and embedded so is Ontology and consciousness 
(James, 1890).

In my work and proposed heuristics these are the sole criteria of 
evaluation.  I look and see what makes me fulfilled, more, less, or not at 
all.  What secures me Ontologically, more, less, not at all.  I evaluate it. 
Offending people makes me feel ungratified, with no self-respect and angry 
and frustrated with myself.  I am writing this explanation to compensate for 
my last comment in my last entry that might have been too blunt.

I cannot resist and count lines - 26 lines are here - below the suggested 
required 30

Alon

28/9 lines I cannot resist - it is the quality not the quantity that counts 
in my mind - 190 lines can flow, engage and be read with less effort and 
more smoothly than 4 lines.  It is an Art that should be mastered - as a 
criterion if you wish
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "alon serper" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: Start of the Review Process


*  having respect for evidence
*  identifying the nature of evidence
*  invoking the logic of question and answer
*  maintaining an aesthetically engaged and appreciative response
*  an awareness of taste
*  an awareness of thymos

These are very nice words above.  What do they actually mean? Is discussing
them with words the answer? Won't it lead to an infinitive regress of words
and words and words and words and words?  What is 'taste'? What is
'aesthetically engaged and appreciative response'? What is 'evidence'? What
is an 'answer'? What is a 'question'?  Now someone will try to answer me and
I shall answer back and a third will answer me and I shall answer him/her
and so forth and so forth.

Isn't the answer just an interpretation in action by producing work that
will show what these and possibly other criteria (who says that this is how
I perceive good research?) mean for the individual who produces the work.
Again, I suggest sharing works and writings and seeing and examining what
they mean as we engage with them - like a reading or Art review or a
critical reading or Art group.  I personally do not see any other way of
engaging with rigour when human beings and human existence are involved.

Since there are apparently four convenors who are trying to call us to
order, I am looking forward to see who will kick me out of this e-seminar or
just give me a yellow card with warning for a red if I won't behave.

Alon

-- 
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! 

-- 
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!