The Son&Heir texted me during a lunch break last week. He asked me for specifics on his birth date, time and birthplace. When I asked why, he replied with something about a “complex horoscope”. Here’s an extract from our ensuing conversation:
These are the days of our lives…
Does your son live at a distance from you, and you therefore see him infrequently?
Ours does, and this has caused an uncomfortable, at times, detachment. A clashing of ideals as it were. I have no perfect solution. Our son is exposed to influences that I have no control of. Because he is at a distance (1000+ miles away) I have very little influence on him. Such is the way these days when children prefer to live far off from their parents.
A part of me longs for the “Walton Fambly” existence.
When I was a child all of my parents fambly’s lived within a 2-10 mile radius of us and were associated with at least weekly.
Then, when I was in my early teens (1966) everybody started moving to distant place and things were never the same again.
Nah, the Son&Heir works almost walking distance from my apartment, and lives a couple miles beyond that. He swings round for dinner during the week about once a month, and we go to the range together about the same frequency, maybe a little less because he travels a bit.
Daughter also lives nearby, but because of her husband’s work demands, we only see them about every other month. But we text each other at least twice a week to keep in touch.
#2 Son lives in Colorado, so we only see him a couple-three times a year — birthday, Thanksgiving, Xmas etc., but we text often.
Methinks Son & Heir knows his father well and enjoys trolling him. I like him already.
The only thing I know about Heidegger is that he was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
You beat me to it! My hat’s off to another Python fan.
Would someone please have an AI rewrite Heidegger, except have every concept he formulates negated?
Thus, “Temporality does not temporalize the future, nor is the future present in the process of having been.” Let us call this the Anti-Heidegger position.
I think this is equally defensible, or at least equally thought-provoking. I would like to endow a university professorship in Anti-Heidegger studies, and sponsor a debate between Heidegger’s acolytes and the Anti-Heidegger people. The transcript of the debate would then be de-identified, and random selections will be submitted to graduate students in philosophy. Their task would be to pick which sections were Heidegger orthodoxy, and which were from the Anti-Heidegger viewpoint.
I predict they will be unable to tell.