Hi all. I'm preparing an encyclopedia article on Takeshi Kitano and thought
I'd canvass y'all for any academic resources re Kitano and his films you may
be aware of. Can be in any language. Thanks. Feel free to reply to me
directly, if you wish, with any bibliographic tidbits. bd


> There are 7 messages totalling 325 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. being or not-being (3)
>   2. being etc. (2)
>   3. 2 net movie projects
>   4. filming a thought
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 30 Apr 2003 06:27:41 -0700
> From:    james lomax <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: being or not-being
>
> <<Its
> an ontology first project --loaded concepts like
> consciousness must come later, if at all --and must
> first
> be stripped of any metaphysical presumptions >>
>
> OK....getting away from these complex convolutions for
> just a second - they have their own trajectory, which
> is not necessarily fully comprehensive:
>
> I suggest that consciousness comes first in terms of
> simple phenomenology, and any analytic method. You can
> cut, paste, construct and de-construct concepts all
> over the place....but only within a field of
> consciousness, without which you would not exist. I
> don't mean as a speculative philosophical premise, I
> mean you would not exist in the sense in which H the
> man no longer exists.
>
> What you say *about* consciousness is secondary -
> whether it's metaphysical, relevant, irrelevant etc.
> None of this kind of discourse makes any difference to
> the fact of the 'wider field' of consciousness, within
> which - only - is this philosophcial activity
> possible, or any other.
>
> It seems to me terms like 'being' are not only the
> most profound that we have, but they have to be
> addressed in the most encompassing and panoramic way
> possible - some of which lies beyond the parameters of
> established intellectual discourse. Otherwise, your
> speculative rationale takes you to places that
> ultimately make no sense.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:40:21 +0100
> From:    James Lomax <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: being etc.
>
> <<Notice how easy it is for us to utilize the word being
> and to suggest exotic philosophies that exploit the
> expression without having a real sense of what the
> expression means or signifies.>>
>
> Precisely. The same point applies to the term consciousness.
> Thought is infinitely malleable; you can cut it and shape it in infinite
> ways, however you wish. And if it is elegantly constructed and appears to
> address the necessary concepts for any particular enquiry, then it is
> adopted and then discussed by everyone else in the academic tradition.
>
> However, what I say, think or speculate about 'being' makes no difference
> to its fundamental fact. And if I don't adopt this kind of stance at the
> very beginning of any enquiry I make, then my philosophical enquiry is
> deeply flawed. It is, in fact, a kind of intellectual hubris with an
> illusory sense of the significance of intellect.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:18:11 +0100
> From:    Isabelle McQT xx <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: 2 net movie projects
>
> Do you need to have a broadband internet connection to view these? I failed
> with my 56k dial-up...
>
> > nyc2 canal
> > http://66.240.178.143/canal2/
> >
> > bandl
> > http://66.240.178.143/bandl/
> >
> > appreciate comments/critic.
> >
> > doron
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 30 Apr 2003 08:34:37 -0700
> From:    Joseph Billings <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: being or not-being
>
> Hello James,
>
> Here is a take on your comments. Let me know what you
> think.
>
>
> --- james lomax <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > <<Its
> > an ontology first project --loaded concepts like
> > consciousness must come later, if at all --and must
> > first
> > be stripped of any metaphysical presumptions >>
> >
> > OK....getting away from these complex convolutions for
> > just a second - they have their own trajectory, which
> > is not necessarily fully comprehensive:
> >
> > I suggest that consciousness comes first
> in terms of
> > simple phenomenology, and any analytic method.
>
> Simple phenomenolgy is exactly what Heidegger is doing in
> an attempt to get at what you call consciousness, but he
> would not, and does not, like to use the term consciousness
> --its hard to tell what we mean by it.  Simple
> phenomenology is Heidegger's analytic method, and it does
> come first. Through phenomenology Heidegger will arrive at
> "thinking." In a manner of speaking, I think you are using
> the term "consciousness" synonomously with the way
> Heidegger objects to our reflex use of the term "being." He
> is trying to establish, at bottom, what expressions like
> consciousness (being) amount to. He wants a better idea of
> exactly what kind of phenomena is behind these expressions.
> The idea of being that first inspires Heidegger to do his
> Dasein analytic (as distingished from the more concrete
> idea of "being" in the analytic itself (i.e. Dasein's way
> of making things intelligible) is very simple actually,
> although very obscure. He is just asking in a simple,
> everyday, almost pre-philosophical way, what does it mean
> for me and other entities to exist? Its really almost a
> boyish question. (And I think he would ask the same thing
> of consciousness: what does it mean for me to be
> conscious?) But he is astounded by 2000 years of philosophy
> that seems to think it has answered the question, when in
> fact, it has simply forgotten all about it. I am beginning
> to see Heidegger as simply insisting that we should start
> philosophy all over again, only on the second time around,
> lets not make the mistake of trying to explain phenomena by
> a reduction to things. This was really Socrates complaint
> in the Phaedo when he says imagine trying to explain why I
> am in jail in terms of the objects that make it
> mechanically possible for me to be in jail. He wants to
> remake philosophy as phenomenology.
>
> Joe
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 30 Apr 2003 08:53:39 -0700
> From:    Joseph Billings <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: being etc.
>
> James,
>
> --- James Lomax <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > <<Notice how easy it is for us to utilize the word being
> > and to suggest exotic philosophies that exploit the
> > expression without having a real sense of what the
> > expression means or signifies.>>
> >
> > Precisely. The same point applies to the term
> > consciousness.
> > Thought is infinitely malleable; you can cut it and shape
> > it in infinite
> > ways, however you wish. And if it is elegantly
> > constructed and appears to
> > address the necessary concepts for any particular
> > enquiry, then it is
> > adopted and then discussed by everyone else in the
> > academic tradition.
>
> Ah. Okay. Good.
> >
> > However, what I say, think or speculate about 'being'
> > makes no difference
> > to its fundamental fact. And if I don't adopt this kind
> > of stance at the
> > very beginning of any enquiry I make, then my
> > philosophical enquiry is
> > deeply flawed. It is, in fact, a kind of intellectual
> > hubris with an
> > illusory sense of the significance of intellect.
>
> This claim is pretty hard for me to deal with now at least
> in terms of Heidegger. I have only read, and I am still
> studying, Being and Time. I have pretty much decided that
> Being and Time is basically a prolegomena to a lot of later
> work that I suspect will in turn provide some kind of more
> complete Heideggarian appraisal of your observation. But
> based upon my reading of B/T, I don't think we will want to
> say that being is some kind of objective fact that we
> comment upon from some separate place. But being is a
> certain fact of the matter: Dasein's facticity, his place
> in the world. I think the idea is similar to Wittgenstein's
> Tractatus observation that facts are all there is.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:42:58 +0100
> From:    James Lomax <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: being or not-being
>
> >Simple phenomenolgy is exactly what Heidegger is doing in
> >an attempt to get at what you call consciousness, but he
> >would not, and does not, like to use the term consciousness
> >--its hard to tell what we mean by it.  Simple
> >phenomenology is Heidegger's analytic method, and it does
> >come first. >>
>
> I may not always refer to what H actually said because - quite frankly -
> I've not read very much. My observations were more a response to the
> dialogue here. If he is indeed
>
>
> >> trying to establish, at bottom, what expressions like
> >consciousness (being) amount to. >>
>
> then I may be encouraged to investigate further. Because if he is
>
>
> <<<just asking in a simple,
> >everyday, almost pre-philosophical way, what does it mean
> >for me and other entities to exist? Its really almost a
> >boyish question. >>>
>
> then his position seems to be similar to mine. I believe that simple
> questions are often more sophisticated than the complex ones that generally
> attract people and are regarded as 'academically valuable'. For example:
> now, everything is constantly moving. Physics tells us this in its own
> domain, and meditation traditions and personal experience tells us the same
> with regard to the mind - meditation doesn't 'stop' thought, that is
> impossible; it moves like the blood circulation, even when we sleep. So, if
> everything is movement, what is stillness? How does the mind, which is
> movement, intersect with it? In fact can it 'see' it if not only is there
> stillness and movement but gradations of both which require you to be
> attuned to whatever frequency you are investigating. If you're not, then
> you won't recognise or understand it, and whatever reports you are
> presented with, you will conclude they are no more than an interesting idea
> which you are in a position to evaluate because intellect rules supreme. In
> which you are mistaken. Etc.
>
> I can quite easily engage with more conventional and 'academic' forms of
> discourse, but when it comes to questions about 'being' etc. my view is
> that the fundamental and supposedly naive questions are actually the most
> important and have never been properly addressed. Not, at least, in the
> Western tradition. As i said before, I might have said to H as he was
> dying "Now then H (may I call you H?), what is the relationship between
> your years of philosophy and this immediate predicament you are currently
> experiencing which is indeed a matter of 'being' and 'nothingness'. Do you
> agree that all your ideas did not prepare you for or anticipate WHAT IS
> HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, and that they were, therefore, somewhat lacking?" Etc.
>
> Call me naive if you wish (but maybe not post it here ;-) ) - but as far as
> I'm concerned, if you consider phenomenologically ultimate questions, then
> you can't take any prisoners. It's time to think about fundamental
> existential issues. Otherwise, you engage in a pursuit that is
> fundamentally 'armchair philosophy' or as you put it, 'castles in the sky'.
>
> (And I think he would ask the same thing
> >of consciousness: what does it mean for me to be
> >conscious?) But he is astounded by 2000 years of philosophy
> >that seems to think it has answered the question, when in
> >fact, it has simply forgotten all about it.
>
>
> Me too. Except it doesn't so much astound me as make me think hmm, so what
> was the point of all that work? It doesn't *surprise* me, because as far as
> I'm concerned it is the *nature* of the mind to construct castles in the
> air - sometimes, at least.
>
>
> <<He wants to
> >remake philosophy as phenomenology.>>
>
> Well that's sensible.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:01:05 -0500
> From:    jacquelinespringer <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: filming a thought
>
> i feel filming a thought is no different than filming anything else.  it
> matters not whether the object you are trying to film is abstract or
> concrete,,,,, when i am shooting, i am shooting what i am seeing.
>
> when i am feeling/thinking ,,,again, it is my internal process. no matter
> how hard i may try,,,,who can fully understand with what another is saying,
> seeing, thinking, or feeling?
>
> all i can truly do is put some forms of symbols out there that may or may
> not be recognized as i  have perceived them.,,,,.it has taken me some time
> to understand and accept that  the reaction is the task of the viewer.
> jacqueline
>
> http://www.millimage.com/jackie/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 30 Apr 2003 (#2003-134)
> *******************************************************