Hi Susanna,
Thank you for the reply and kindly forgive any perceived but unintended
rudeness in my earlier reply. Sometimes my seemingly perpetual combat mode
extends unnecessarily into civil dialog. I just returned from the enjoyable
ring of "let's beer" (something I read this morning) and have to prepare for
tomorrow. I'm preoccupied with several cases and will return to answer in my
spare time.
Regards, Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Susanna Chandler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: thought, language and being
> I have been finding Richard's insights very compelling. His points that
> foundations in origins is inadequate for reasons of causation hold up.
> Though I would throw in the Burkian notion of organic evolution of being
and
> meaning. This is precisely what I I believe H bemoaned as lost and
> fragmented beyond repair in the world. A garden of Eden as it were. The
> resuscitation of authentic being did and does necessitate a new language,
> the creation of new being.
>
> It is also highly valid to hold up one's own experiences as a measure of
> what this entails and means. No language can ever substitute the
> transfiguration of being as realized.
>
> Which brings me to several thoughts involved another language which
creates
> an ontological foundation for metaphysical being: music. And here I would
> suggest a more formal creation of music integrated with more fully
realized
> states of being which incorporate visual and conceptual language. Before I
> invite too many caveats, let's accept that all music is in some sense a
> system or structure of being in action. Even in its most basic and
> unconscious forms. But we are dealing with conscious systems which lead to
> the creation of a new hermeneutics.
>
> Monteverdi devoted himself to creating an interpretive system for opera.
He
> believed he could create a meta language which established relationships
> between tonal structures, emotions, and gesture. Ultimately he could not
> resolve the visual, emotional, and conceptual. Yet one only needs to
listen
> to Orpheus, or other works to experience the state of being he wishes to
> share within a language of art. It is also difficult to escape what was
> later described by Bach and Schopenhauer as the veil. Veil of tears, Veil
of
> Maya. And as later described by Stephen Crane, "caught in the stubble of
the
> earth, like an unfolding veil."
>
> Avoiding excessive musicology, why not skip to the transfiguration of this
> division between metaphysical being and its manifestation in life on
earth.
> Beethoven of course. Ode to Spring. The assumption of newly created life
> within the collective expression of genius. All that. But there is a great
> deal more behind this, and beyond. Beethoven too created a new language,
> connected to the past and experience, but something never before realized.
> He achieved this in an ontological sense. He subjectively expressed the
> vigor and passion of youth, without the reflection of deeper experience.
He
> was a virtuoso in his beginnings as a great composer [whether or not you
> like his work, just as I may not *like* H]. He then goes on to create a
> system of conventions based on these original inspirations of being. He
> explores being as far as he is able, formally and expressively. In his
later
> work, where he achieves transfiguration, both convention and fullest
> expression unite, and he is transformed. His music is transformed, because
> it can be experienced by others, together, with him, beyond self, aware,
and
> most definitely as a living beingness. My words are quite clunky here. I
> attribute anything resembling insight to Theodore Adorno. Most of you will
> know the reference, which is Thomas Mann's depiction of Theodore Adorno's
> musical lecture in Santa Monica in Dr. Faustus. Chapter XIII I think. The
> one of the old professor with a stutter.
>
> Then there is Schoenberg, Miles Davis, maybe even the Beatles. Who's to
say,
> and shouldn't we allow for all relativity which supports, oh I don't know
.
> . . unconsciousness mediated by consciousness. Being, when there is no
> thought of being, and it is sublime to be so.
>
> I also only use music as another medium. One which oftens shapes the
> experiential and narrative line of a film as much as the visual.
>
> My simplistic elaboration is to express that art can do what no philosophy
> is ultimately equipped to do. Great artists are philosophers. Does it work
> both ways? Is it even safe for this to be possible? Can reason, matter,
and
> energy add up to consciousness and Being?
>
> Of course not. Which changes nothing. Zen, epiphany, flow, love,
cosmology,
> reason to great purpose, are all pathways. And only that. Why else be
alive,
> if we are already in a perfect state?
>
> That this can never be an excuse for evil and intentional destruction
would
> be the one absolute I would ever make as a mere mortal.
>
> Susanna
>
> p.s. I honestly don't want to go back and edit, so please excuse any faux
> pas.
>
>
> > H attempts to circumvent numerous traditional problems by introducing a
> > fresh mind set delivered by a transfiguration of accepted language
designed
> > to impress upon us the power of his novelty in a coherent manner. By
> > "necessarily" I meant that ordinarily language was inadequate for his
> > purposes. After all, language forms are developed daily to deal with new
> > circumstances. In a W'n sense, he is creating a new form of life.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I agree that seeking origins (from what, where) is inadequate because
among
> > other grounds, it fails to relate to causation (origin is not cause) and
> > thus lacks sufficient explanatory power. Similarly explaining phenomenon
in
> > terms of things because, aside from obvious intuition, there is no
> > sufficient, adequate ground for establishing the relationship between
> > premises (facts, axioms), derivational rules and the resulting
conclusion
> > sets (consider Tarski). "What things are" presupposes a set of
valuations.
> > Here I agree with H - it can't be done except by means of relations the
> > validity of which will always be open to valuations.
> >
> > I submit that "what does being mean" is unavoidable from any
perspective,
> > east, west... but I disagree that H's language becomes "very
transparent"
> > and
> > in particular that his terms become, based on the foregoing grounds,
> > "precise, informative, surgical". I will return to this point.
> >
> > James' provocative submissions deserve evaluation. I disagree along with
> > Nietzsche that Eastern thought has a "more sophisticated and coherent
> > tradition" and that the problem of being addressed by "endless
convoluted
> > speculation" is somehow circumvented by simply and magically determining
> > that 'something either is or isn't". I have danced with the "wild" ones
in
> > meditation and have practiced the ultimate" meditation in motion"
(martial
> > arts) for many years and have yet to experience "either/or". Quite
simply,
> > we are not designed to work that way. We do not begin and end with
ourselves
> > because
> > even if there were a self, it would be an interpretation. I became
convinced
> > upon accepting the Humean challenge, namely finding the self. Try it and
see
> > whether you find a "self" or innumerable states of consciousness, the
veil
> > of Maya. It's no wonder many Easterns view the self is an illusion. In
any
> > event, what state of consciousness qualifies as an "is"?. Maybe Om is
just
> > as
> > many claim, a residual noise based on our physiology. And when/how
exactly
> > do you know that "any" state is "yourself". I submit that you don't and
that
> > the answer is blowin in the wind.
> >
> > The notion of the equivalence of "logical construction" and the K'n
> > thing-in-itself sounds like a misreading and makes no sense. How does
one
> > tie these two concepts together in any consistent acceptable way. And no
one
> > has submitted the impossible notion that language "is the thing itself"
> > .
> > As for mind games, N postulates that we are comprised of sub-selves
> > (units of power) that compete with one another to gain access to
> > consciousness (echoes of Leibniz' monad, Schopenhauer's and Freud's
> > unconscious). Here he foresaw the advances in psych/physiology.
Awareness is
> > a reduction like mp3. What comes to consciousness is a compressed
version
> > after elimination. (interesting lit relating to all 11 senses).
> >
> > Where I differ from the H is the emphasis on the power of and the
obligation
> > imposed on the "self". A mistake that Sartre corrected prior to his
death.
> > Perhaps
> > god manifests himself in the unending mysterious process (Whitehead).
> >
> > To return briefly, my original debatable psychoanalytic guess (insight)
was
> > that the impetus for H's project was his incredulous confrontation with
the
> > mysterious "thing". I don't mean to suggest anything like Adler's
> > inferiority compensation but rather a Nietzschean confrontation with
life
> > from
> > a position of strength.
> >
> > Time to go outfor dinner. I tend to go stream so forgive any rambling
which
> > I don't have
> > time to correct. I intended to include Goedel, Derrida, Popper but
that's
> > another venture.
> >
> > Incidentally I read Iain Thomson's "Can I Die? Derrida on Heidegger on
> > Death" yesterday and recommend it highly.
> >
> > As an aside, I upgraded my German language skills thru the Goethe
Institute
> > and am rereading Nietzsche in the original. I am surprised to confront a
> > more light-footed, funny fellow.
> >
> > Regards, Richard
|