Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 40, No. 107.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
Date: 2026-07-30 10:16:40+00:00
From: Tim Smithers <tim.smithers@cantab.net>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.88: repetition's point
Dear Jim,
I like your further elucidations on how special or unique the
first of something is.
You bring out something I couldn't see how to say before.
There's the specialness or uniqueness of being the first time,
then there's the specialness or uniqueness of the first time
when there is also a second time, and perhaps more times. The
second time, and more times, cannot, I think, take away the
specialness of the first time, but it may add to the
specialness or uniqueness, and perhaps even swamp the first
time only specialness or uniqueness.
Then, it seems to me, the specialness or uniqueness of the
first time, before any second or more times, may change how we
feel or re-experience or think about what we, at first, felt
about the second time, and subsequent further times. The
first, and so far only, time thus has, I'd say, a kind of
specialness which no subsequent time can have, no matter how
special or unique any subsequent time might turn out to be.
And, from this, we see that experience is non-linear and not
one directional in what we call time. Which I like, because
it means, I'd claim, that the only place experience understood
this way can happen is in the real world, and that the only
way to have experiences in this way, is by being embodied,
situated in, and engaged with this real world.
So, thank you for your further workings out here, and not for
the first time.
-- Tim
PS: On Kierkegaard I can't respond. I've never managed to
think I understand what he wrote, even after repeated
readings, though from what you say he said, we seem to be
close. -:)
> On 19 Jul 2026, at 08:18, Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:
>
>
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 40, No. 88.
> Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
> Hosted by DH-Cologne
> www.dhhumanist.org
> Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
>
>
>
>
> Date: 2026-07-18 16:44:19+00:00
> From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.86: repetition's point
>
> Thank you for these responses, Tim. We seem to think about the same way
> about repetition and equivocation, but I would add this: I don't think we
> know how special or at least unique (could have been uniquely awful) that
> first kiss is until at least our second kiss, but usually long after, after
> we've had a history of kisses and look back. I think that's the specific
> kind of being "embodied, situated, and socially and
> culturally aware and connected" that is needed to see the uniqueness of
> that first kiss.
>
> Kierkegaard's point, if I understand it, is that being immanent, embodied,
> and existing in time as well as possessing memory makes the first
> experience of anything unable to be repeated. Repetition is impossible for
> any aesthetic or otherwise bodily experience.
>
> He argues though that repetition may be possible with religious experiences
> (I think he's thinking about the repetition of the liturgy every week)
> because we *can possibly *experience it in a religious experience that
> approaches it from contact with eternity, which by definition is outside of
> time.
>
> Otherwise, repetition is impossible for first kisses, first operas, etc.
>
> Absolutely yes about equivocation, by the way. It can be deliberate, or it
> can be unselfconscious.
>
> I think we need to remember that AI is big business *in the case of every
> single provider without exception*. Mystification with the technology
> sells. That's all that matters to them. They will disseminate absolute
> nonsense so long as they can build data centers over land donated to be
> public parks.
>
> Jim R
>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 4:24 AM Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Jim,
>>
>> You asked ...
>>
>> "... can you repeat the first kiss that you ever had from
>> anyone?"
>>
>> No, I would say not. And you asked ...
>>
>> "Are subsequent first kisses from any number of partners
>> comparable to that first kiss ever?"
>>
>> No, not in the sense of them being like the experience of your
>> first ever kiss. That's to say, subsequent first kisses do
>> not have, and, I would say, cannot have, the specialness of
>> your very first ever kiss.
>>
>> It takes, I think, being embodied, situated, and socially and
>> culturally aware and connected, at least, to be able to
>> experience and appreciate the specialness of the very first
>> time ever of something. It's from these very first time ever
>> experiences that we learn what being special is, it seems to
>> me. Just being told something is special doesn't do it.
>>
>> And, I agree, strongly, "... using the same word [for machine
>> intelligence and human intelligence] is linguistic sleight of
>> hand." But, I'd say it's not just "equivocation every single
>> time," today, it's all too often deliberate falsification and
>> hype'.
>>
>> -- Tim
>>
>>
>> PS: I'm not a Medium subscriber so I couldn't access all of
>> "Why Sentient Machines Will Never Exist" -:(
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 28 Jun 2026, at 09:05, Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 40, No. 74.
>>> Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
>>> Hosted by DH-Cologne
>>> www.dhhumanist.org
>>> Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: 2026-06-26 15:46:40+00:00
>>> From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.70: repetition's point
>>>
>>> Thanks for the reply, Tim. Just to clarify, can you repeat the first kiss
>>> that you ever had from anyone? Are subsequent first kisses from any
>> number
>>> of partners comparable to that first kiss ever?
>>>
>>> I don't think we can overstate the qualitative difference between
>> inorganic
>>> machine intelligence and organic human intelligence. We need two
>> different
>>> words -- using the same word is linguistic sleight of hand. It's
>>> equivocation every single time.
>>>
>>> I also think we can somewhat understand why that is so:
>>>
>>> https://medium.com/@jamesrovira/why-sentient-machines-will-never-
>>> exist-078fdb325b91
>>>
>>> Jim R
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. James Rovira <http://www.jamesrovira.com/>
>
> - *David Bowie and Romanticism
> <https://jamesrovira.com/2022/09/02/david-bowie-and-romanticism/>*,
> Palgrave Macmillan, 2022
> - *Women in Rock, Women in Romanticism
> <https://www.routledge.com/Women-in-Rock-Women-in-Romanticism-The-
> Emancipation-of-Female-Will/Rovira/p/book/9781032069845>*,
> Routledge, 2023
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php
