I vaguely remember but I don't think it had much coverage in Canada. In any
event, it doesn't surprise me at all.
Regards
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Billings" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: being or not-being
> Okay. I'll be a nice guy from now on.
>
> But your points about the trickiness of cross examing women
> are very accurate. I don't know if you paid any attention
> to the debates a year or two ago between Hillary Clinton
> and ... I forget her opponents name in the NY Senate
> race--but he did a very mild cross of Hillary --in a debate
> no less --and the press cooked him.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 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
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
|
