--- Susanna Chandler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If H's sexual tensions are of interest, then a straight
> forward comparison
> of Hannah Arendt and her lover/mentor H would provide a
> solid set of clues.
> Perhaps her *banality of evil* might even apply.
I thought gender frustration and name calling were over.
>
> I apologize to the forum
Thank you.
Monteverdi's
> extraordinary efforts in
> effecting a conceptual / artistic system.
What does this mean?
That he ended
> up with a Cartesian
> result
What does this mean?
is the problematic that an artist like Beethoven
> took up.
What was the problematic and how did Beethoven address it?
>
> Theodore Adorno's extensive work on Beethoven is
> extremely apropos. He was,
> of course, a scholar of H., and expressed his
> philosophical education and
> individual concepts in his understanding of B's artistic
> life cycle.
Interesting conclusions, but where's the beef?
Whereas
> we might endlessly discuss H's sandwiching of the
> metaphysical origins and
> futures around being-in-time,
You figure everyone understands Heidegger now and Being and
Time has now been exhausted?
the trajectory of a great
> artists is perhaps
> the best example of what this might mean or not mean.
And what does this mean?
>
> I would urge anyone on this list to read Thomas Mann's
> chapter in Dr.
> Faustus
Always a good idea to read.
which is a direct fictionalization of Theodore
> Adorno's famous
> lecture/performance on Beethoven's last sonata. It took
> place in the Pacific
> Palisades [my bad re: Santa Monica]. Most of us are quite
> aware of Adorno's
> transformative ideas regarding dialectics. My favorite is
> Dialectics of
> Enlightenment,
How about some details?
> Regardless, the metamorphosis from passion into
> convention/language/structure.
What does this mean?
Then moving into a
> manifest conjuring
What does this mean?
of a
> being/beings first walking then almost transgressing the
> phenomena of life
What does this mean?
> being pulled into death / stillness;
What does this mean?
movement into quiet,
> the tensions
> between.
What does this mean.
It's true. It is there.
Can't tell.
>
> Heidegger was nearly on the mark in his belief that art
> could express the
> full being of the metaphysical
What do you think Heidegger meant? How was he right? How
was he wrong?
mingled with pure
> being-in-the-world.
What do you think Heidegger meant by these expressions?
What do you mean when you use them?
Where H
> went wrong was indeed, as Richard pointed out, that the
> causality between
> origins and ontology simply do not exist any longer
What do you mean? Exactly what claim, located where, are
you disputing?
And this
> proved dangerous to the extreme.
Why? What proved dangerous?
In Beethoven's Ode To
> Spring the heightened
> possibility of collective experience of transformation in
> being other could
> be achieved,
What do you mean?
in much in the same manner as N's Birth of
> Tragedy.
What do you mean?
By the time
> Beethoven had reached beyond maturity into wisdom of age
> in his last works
> he portrayed a lightness and heaviness of being, pure
> embodiment of being,
What does this mean?
> much as Nietzche came to do with thought.
What can you mean?
It is not
> beside the point that
> Beethoven was deaf, essentially expressing his ideas
> without measuring this
> against physical affirmation. Similar to ontology without
> naming. Beyond
> naming.
Do you wish to express a view about Beethoven and ontology?
What in your view is "ontology without naming?"
>
> This is not trivial nor am I attempting to be wild eyed
> or inventive.
> Certainly I apologize if belaboring my ideas.
No need to apologize, but there is a great need to belabor
the details.
>
> best, Susanna
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|