Funny and precise but perhaps somewhat on the unnecessarily harsh side.
Susanna doesn't strike me as phil major but anyone who ventures into combat
land should come prepared for counter-attack and dissection. I myself am
ruthless in cross-examination and have no mercy on any "expert" witness who
ventures into the arena with inadequate weaponry or skills and expects mercy
by relying on status, regurgitation of (inaccurate) facts or hearsay. But
even the best "experts" in almost any field are relatively easily
dismantled, or at a minimum, made to appear inadequate thereby raising
doubts as to the value of their testimony. In extreme cases, where the
opinion of the expert is held in high regard, one simply calls a competing
witness with an equally plausible alternative explanation. It is sexist but
almost universal that women are cross-examined differently and treated more
politely than men. Many books on cross-examination suggest differential
techniques for dealing with the genders if only to maintain favour with
juries. In a phil forum everyone should be fair game but still, maybe it's
just me, there's this residual reluctance to cause potential shame to women.
My feminist friends (and probably Susanna) consider this attitude insulting
and degrading but they themselves treat women differently. I just reread
this before sending and changed my mind. This after all is philosophy not a
social club. Carry on. No prisoners.
Regards, Richard
Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Billings" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: being or not-being
> --- 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
|