Down to words (33)

Think of the man mugged who has (or feigns) a heart attack and produces an early getaway,  his wallet not even taken in the process.

Ground emerges quite fast there.

Down to words (32)

Of a contemplated trip:

“Junction?  Not exactly.”

“What then?”

“We’re going to put in down river from there.”

“You mean at Point South?”

“No, but near there.”

“Where?”

“Down a mile from there.”

“Huh?”

“There’s a point there.”

“Where?”

“How long has it been since you been down there?”

“A while.”

“A good while, I’d say. It’s about another mile. Easier carry, too.”

“Ok, I’ll leave it alone.”

“Well, gotta run.”

“Be sure to get a look at those dunes there and tell me how they look.”

“I don’t know if they’re still there.”

”How so?”

“Remember, the Corp of Engineers redid part of that river in ’91.”

“Shit, I forgot.”

“That, too; well, I’ll look around for you anyway. See you.”

“See you.”

Ground emerges haltingly here and almost stops a getaway.

Down to words(31)

All of the above goes for the pecking order in the professional philo business.

(Maybe that is why we did not talk about the birds(and that Maltese Falcon that is philosophy), since the river(Heraclitus’ or Zappa’s) is plenty.)

 

Down to words (30)
 

Unless we want to multiply priorities beyond necessity, there is no need to say that there is a prior common ground, for we would have to introduce grounds for an indefinite multitude of conversations and employ more philosophers at another (manufactured) level where we do not need them.

I love the way Heidegger thought all his buddies should be doing regional ontologies for him.

Being and Time, p 31, 1962 edition.

All the spadework that needed to be done.

With the proof left for the understudy as an exercise.

Down to words (29)

Note here that to get the common ground to have the conversation, there is something factual: that I know the man who has gone to Junction, I know the river in Junction, and so on.

The common ground is not already there.  It emerges when the conversation goes smoothly and where it is lacking (should it be), it has to be filled.

If you want to say it is already there, it is only there in a trivial sense: that the conversation went accordingly. My knowing the man and the river and the town might produce no common ground for another conversation

( Like one about his ex wife whom I am now dating.)

Down to words (28)

How’d I know he was going to the river?

Somehow I did.
And he did not ask me.

If this were important in a court case, an attorney might ask “did there come a time at which you knew that a trip to the river was planned?”

But it is not important here. There is no question to answer without making something important which is not.
 

So there is no legal level to which to shift.
 

Nor is there need to point out that Heraclitus said “all things are a flowing”. It adds nothing.

Nor that Mr. Zappa had an opinion about a river.

Although with all the sheep down in Junction (and knowing what sheep do), Zappa’s view might come to mind.

http://www.furious.com/perfect/sanders.html

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/river%20of%20shit

Down to words (27)

Now we are down to the trip.

What trip?
The one I asked him about and about which he gave an answer.

Had there been no trip, we would have stopped or shifted.

Instead because there was a trip we could proceed to the river.

What river?
The one down in Junction and so on.

Down to words (26)

Common ground is seasonal here.
It is not seasonal all the time. When you fix the sprinklers and thus have to talk about them, it is likely spring or summer. That is when you notice their failings.

But what about failures in the TIVO?
Or in Spanish class?
Or in plumbing?

These are not typically seasonal.

Such mundane thoughts.
Too mundane for philosophy.

One cannot get to anything more fundamental.

There is no 'average everydayness.’

Gar kein Alltäglichkeit

So there is no philosophy.

http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631190950_chunk_g97806311909508_ss1-5

Down to words (25)

There is common ground to ask about any of these: birds, flowers, river but not ground to ask about  bears or lions or tigers.

In Van Horn, maybe bears.

Toward Big Bend, maybe mountain lions.

Ground is contextual.

It is seasonal, geographical, etc. 

There is no need for ontology here, for there is no need for a ground that is non contextual.

How could it explain the conversation that took place or others that might have taken place?

(Think of ‘How did it come about that you talked about the river and not the birds?’)

Rules are of no point here either.