Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 40, No. 110.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
[1] From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.107: repetition's point (73)
[2] From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.107: repetition's point (10)
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2026-07-31 10:35:49+00:00
From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman.sheji@icloud.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.107: repetition's point
Dear Tim,
Kierkegaard wrote one thing about life and time that
seems quite apt to what you write here:
“It is quite true what philosophy says, that life must be
understood backward. But then one forgets the other
principle, that it must be lived forward. Which principle,
the more one thinks it through, ends exactly
with temporal life never being able to be properly
understood . . .”
Yours,
Ken
> On 31 Jul 2026, at 07:56, Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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. -:)
>
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2026-07-31 19:35:38+00:00
From: James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 40.107: repetition's point
I think you get him pretty well, Tim. He wrote quite a bit about memory and
subjectivity, and he also wrote about a mind that looks forward rather than
back.
Jim R
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
_______________________________________________
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
