Soren Kierkegaard exerts a substantial amount of energy clarifying the difference between quantitative movement and qualitative movement. An example of quantitative movement is someone running laps around a track. The number of laps run increases but the movement remains the same. The person is literally running in circles. This movement is essentially no movement at all, it is imminent, closed. Conversely qualitative movement always requires a “leap”. If memory serves, we learned in high school chemistry about the various electron rings of particular elements. For there to movement in these rings external energy is required. Kierkegaard is concerned that we do not mistake the two. If the mistake goes unnoticed the appearance of movement continues but the possibility of change is denied. Now Kierkegaard is shrewd enough not to prescribe how humans may encounter this “leap”. If we may invoke the leap, then it is no longer external (transcendent) resulting in quantitative movement. On the other hand, if I have no influence in the possibility of movement the individual will dissolves and with it my identity. So Kierkegaard teases at the elusive possibility (and reality) of movement.
January 23, 2006; 8:30 pm
I have withdrawn from my doctoral program (and subsequently just voted NDP). I can read my motivations from any number of perspectives. I made this choice for this or that reason. Any number of my readings could expose the quantitative nature of logical or psychological explanation. Am I simply entering lap 2 (or 20 or 2000) or have I emerged on a new plane (a new element, substance, life)? Would I recognize a “leap” if I took it?
God be damned or God be praised.
Blessed be the name of the LORD.