RE: Shakespeare

>It's a shame you felt a need to respond in that way. I've looked back at the
>post I sent, and I see no real reason to justify the attempt to make me
>appear arrogant or dismissive. It's a shame you felt a need to make a point
>about your studying before I was born (as if that proves anything).
>
>I realise you think it is amusing to turn my post into a suggestion of
>arrogance and superiority, but yet again you miss the point. I wasn't
>suggesting I knew these things already, and that you were repeating
>something I already knew. Quite the opposite. I was suggesting that you were
>feeling a need to explain, to over-explain, what Shakespeare _meant_,when I
>felt no such need. Equally the point I was making was not that i have
>'superior education' but that I didn't feel a need to 'know' _what_ was
>meant by 'to be or not to be'. That is, for me at least, it isn't a case of
>'to be [what?] or not to be [what?]". Being certainly transcends 'to be
>alive...' - it even transcends 'to be extant'.
>
>I appreciated Michael's post following - it gave a number of perspectives of
>what was/may have been included in the phrase. And yet that doesn't exhaust
>its possibilities. Or its mystery.
>
>Stuart

yes, poetry is, literally speaking, a trancendence of the literal and so it
speaks to the spirit directly without necessity of attendance on or from
any ratios, or perhaps this just to say, that poetry, and shakespeare is
above all a poet, attends its own universe with its speaking, a universe
where the cry of the loon re-presents its deepest spoken thought, its
highest philosophy.

and so why do you bother fencing (tilting) with a flaming ratioincinerator
anyway Stuart?

-k

x





     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---