Dear Susanna,
I recently did a paper on Mountains of the Moon, which I found to be a very
thoughtfully executed film. Patrick Bergman was excellent, and not far off
from the real Captain Burton.
I recommend it.
Doris
-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Automatic digest processor
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 1:00 PM
To: Recipients of FILM-PHILOSOPHY digests
Subject: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 28 Apr 2003 to 29 Apr 2003 (#2003-131)
There are 7 messages totalling 682 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Critique of Heidegger
2. The Biopic
3. meech lake documentary: help! (2)
4. split screen cinema
5. thought, language and being (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:31:07 -0400
From: richard <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Critique of Heidegger
I know this is unrelated (and I am rethinking, rereading the previous
issues) but at lunch today we discussed Canada's failed Meech Lake Accord
which attempted to resolve historical legal conflicts imbedded and
unresolved in our Constitution, our way of life. I thought it would make a
great documentary within an overview of Canada the internally "fragmented"
with the chain of conflicts remaining ultimately unresolved because of the
manifest pride and egos by the final decision makers, the lawyers. To
clarify, the federal-provincial jurisdiction issue wrt sharing of powers is
intertwined with the issue of sovereignty-association with French speaking
Quebec (they wanted to split), language and culture (we are the most
multi-cultured place on earth, particularly in Toronto), geographic (east,
west, Maritime, central , our northern territories) etc. The politicians
reached a form of consensus and asked a task force of lawyers to draft an
acceptable version of the agreement. Stupidly they gave the lawyers a
deadline. The point being that giving the task of mediation, contract
negotiation and resolution to a group of trained warriors is a venture
designed to fail and exemplifies Canada the fragmented not only in the
traditional senses but in the psychological structures of the groups of
power
as well. In particular, the lawyers usurped the power of the politicians
and
negated any agreements because of infighting. I wasn't there and one must be
careful of potential defamation claims but I hear that specific
individuals/cliques refused to co-operate because of the fear of being seen
to capitulate (lose the argument). Reminds one of Freud's poo (Freud's
analysis of anal-retentives in terms of parsimony, stubbornness and
orderliness). This aspect of unintended "treachery" has probably been
addressed numerous times in film already (I am not well versed in the
history of film) but the lawyer-bashing aspect renders it more interesting.
Regards, Richard
Original Message -----
From: "Ross Macleay" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 9:15 PM
Subject: Critique of Heidegger
> On the Heidegger discussion, I think Joseph's comments on how to read H
are
> very useful. You just have to get into the right way of looking at
things -
> or rather, of not just looking at things and thinghood. Then the language
> is clear.
>
> Even so, I am in Susanna's camp. I am wary of the 'ontological need'.
> Adorno, who is a wonderful philosopher of art, is also the author of the
> best critique I know of Heidegger - 'Negative Dialectics'.
>
> (Aside. Is either one though a filmphilosopher? Is cinephilia a
> prerequisite? or philosophilia?)
>
> Ross
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:40:39 -0400
From: Susanna Chandler <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The Biopic
Ghandi, Lawrence of Arabia, and Mountains of the Moon are three biopics I
believe are unspoken for.
Personally, I loved Ghandi. Ben Kingsley is an extraordinary actor, and
delivered a performance to be admired and emulated.
It would seem to me that Lawrence of Arabia is in its own category. A one
man Napoleon? a usurper of identities and the fates of others. He will
always be an enigma.
Which reminds me of Derek Jacobi's Alan Turing in "Breaking the Code". This
film included Harold Pinter. Not a film, but marvelous--I thought.
As to Mountains of the Moon [Richard Burton of the White Nile, master of
40-60 languages, adopter of identities beyond most of our comprehension, not
to mention a, uhm, philosopher of the mannerisms of the body], well I've
never seen it. Has anyone on the list? From the synopses it did not strike
me as satisfying.
best,
Susanna
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:33:59 -0400
From: Andrew Lesk <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: meech lake documentary: help!
Hi
Could the person who just posted a message today about Meech Lake docu,
please
resend me the message in full. I was reading it with interest, when for
some
reason I lost it.
Thanks
Andrew Lesk
http://www.andrewlesk.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:52:02 -0400
From: Susanna Chandler <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: split screen cinema
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3134400722_214056_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
A new film with split screen is in our midst: Phonebooth. Another
excessively high-concept film from LA.
Of some interest is its commitment to the purely subjective, both in
constraint of camera to the character's line of vision, and the pretensions
of deep interpersonal dialogue. The set is more tightly controlled than most
theatre, relying primarily on sound for movement in space. As a result, the
split screen became a necessity for visual dramatic action.
Susanna
on 4/28/03 12:10 AM, [log in to unmask] at [log in to unmask] wrote:
A discussion of split screen appeared on another list recently, with many of
the same suggestions being made. Someone finally came across an article from
Salon from a year or so ago that gave a concise history of split screen. You
might also try to track down information on 'Wicked Wicked" , an early 70s
MGM film released in 'Duo-Vision" - entirely in split screen. . It was about
a serial killer in a San Diego hotel, and one screen represented his point
of view. Unfortunately, it's never been released on video in any format as
far as I know...
Robert Hunt
--MS_Mac_OE_3134400722_214056_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: split screen cinema</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT SIZE=3D"2">A new film with split screen is in our midst: Phonebooth.
An=
other excessively high-concept film from LA. <BR>
<BR>
Of some interest is its commitment to the purely subjective, both in constr=
aint of camera to the character's line of vision, and the pretensions of
dee=
p interpersonal dialogue. The set is more tightly controlled than most
theat=
re, relying primarily on sound for movement in space. As a result, the
split=
screen became a necessity for visual dramatic action.<BR>
<BR>
Susanna<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BR>
on 4/28/03 12:10 AM, [log in to unmask] at [log in to unmask] wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">A discussion of split
screen =
appeared on another list recently, with many of the same suggestions being
m=
ade. Someone finally came across an article from Salon from a year or so
ago=
that gave a concise history of split screen. You might also try to track
do=
wn information on 'Wicked Wicked" , an early 70s MGM film released in
'=
Duo-Vision" - entirely in split screen. . It was about a serial killer
=
in a San Diego hotel, and one screen represented his point of view.
Unfortun=
ately, it's never been released on video in any format as far as I
know...<B=
R>
Robert Hunt</FONT></FONT> <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--MS_Mac_OE_3134400722_214056_MIME_Part--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:00:38 -0400
From: Susanna Chandler <[log in to unmask]>
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
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:22:44 -0400
From: richard <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: meech lake documentary: help!
Hi Andrew,
Here's the original. Kindly revise the easily remembered poo to recall
parsimony, obstinacy (instead of the equivalent stubborn) and orderliness.
Further, I was not suggesting that all or most lawyers are anal retentives
but as the research in trait analysis suggests and confirms, different
personality types are attracted to specific job categories. Jobs don't
significantly alter or create our basic defensive orientation to the world.
We were "created" much earlier and good luck to anyone who would like to
wake up tomorrow in someone else's shoes. Nevertheless some categories
within law are clearly delineated by specific personality types. Just
compare tax lawyers with litigation types or surgeons (excessive scores on
sadistic scales in MMPI etc) with family doctors (fear of death). In my
experience, ar's rule the contract domain.
I know this is unrelated (and I am rethinking, rereading the previous
issues) but at lunch today we discussed Canada's failed Meech Lake Accord
which attempted to resolve historical legal conflicts imbedded and
unresolved in our Constitution, our way of life. I thought it would make a
great documentary within an overview of Canada the internally "fragmented"
with the chain of conflicts remaining ultimately unresolved because of the
manifest pride and egos by the final decision makers, the lawyers. To
clarify, the federal-provincial jurisdiction issue wrt sharing of powers is
intertwined with the issue of sovereignty-association with French speaking
Quebec (they wanted to split), language and culture (we are the most
multi-cultured place on earth, particularly in Toronto), geographic (east,
west, Maritime, central , our northern territories) etc. The politicians
reached a form of consensus and asked a task force of lawyers to draft an
acceptable version of the agreement. Stupidly they gave the lawyers a
deadline. The point being that giving the task of mediation, contract
negotiation and resolution to a group of trained warriors is a venture
designed to fail and exemplifies Canada the fragmented not only in the
traditional senses but in the psychological structures of the groups of
power
as well. In particular, the lawyers usurped the power of the politicians
and
negated any agreements because of infighting. I wasn't there and one must be
careful of potential defamation claims but I hear that specific
individuals/cliques refused to co-operate because of the fear of being seen
to capitulate (lose the argument). Reminds one of Freud's poo (Freud's
analysis of anal-retentives in terms of parsimony, stubbornness and
orderliness). This aspect of unintended "treachery" has probably been
addressed numerous times in film already (I am not well versed in the
history of film) but the lawyer-bashing aspect renders it more interesting.
Regards, Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Lesk" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:33 PM
Subject: meech lake documentary: help!
> Hi
>
> Could the person who just posted a message today about Meech Lake docu,
please
> resend me the message in full. I was reading it with interest, when for
some
> reason I lost it.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Andrew Lesk
> http://www.andrewlesk.com
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:35:10 -0400
From: richard <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: thought, language and being
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
------------------------------
End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 28 Apr 2003 to 29 Apr 2003 (#2003-131)
**********************************************************************
|
