From: "henry sholar" <H_SHOLAR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 9:02:13 EST
>Lovely illustration of the issue. Dug me out of a hole. But how did you
>crack the code? You could easily have gone on with the Heideggerean
>jargon. This is easy. You slide from one term to the other. Each leads
>naturally into the other. Without ever touching down. With our constant
>frisbying of terms that freewheel in frictionless space. Logic is a
>great connector. But hooking up a series of signifiers together does not
>amount to saying anything. One can speak a great deal without saying
>anything. In order to say something we have to break through the pure
>logical synthesis of symbols. You crack the code, break through the
>'surface meaning' and discover the - real- situation, and find me speaking
>through the symbols, with a mouth full of straw. But how does one person
>see it as a code and the other as meaningful dialogue? Is it when we
>realize that the interchange and neologizing of Heideggereanisms is not
>doing any real work, other than helping us fulfil our own job-creation
we just do it, acquire it, attend to it, attune to it
remain flexible to it; or/and, give it up, reify, freeze,
painfully evolve, develop mentation "issues,"
in pondering it, we look for the code, the theory,
the final answer---often in a minimalist's move to
strip away the excess and get at the essential.
derrida helped me realize, on top of wittgenstein's
first showing the possibilities, that "meaning" is that
bottomless tank---and we can stand there with a fire
hose of words, pouring out full blast, and we will
never, never, ever fill up the tank of meaning.
often it's best to just use "high octane" and not
ever worry about driving without a full tank.
>Didn't you take your eye off the ball? In the phrase, 'Mind the sheep'
>your mind tracks the word 'sheep' instead of 'mind'. Likewise for 'Mind
>your head'. What would you have thought of 'Mind the baby, darling', or
>'Pay this no mind'? (An English colloquialism) - 'Darling'? - 'Pay'?
this would add a 'hollywood' dimension to the psychotic episode.
>did make me think though how odd Heidegger must have sounded to his
>contemporaries and why he continued to get passed over for university
>professorships. Do you know of the incident at Davros, Switzerland, in
>1929, when Heidegger went there to participate in public debate with the
>leading Neo-kantian of the day, Ernst Cassirer? While Frau Cassirer
>wondered with the rest of them who this man was, who dared carry out this
>onslaught on the most respected philosophers of the day, this man for whom
>her husband had such difficulty coming to terms with the odd language of
>B&T, and failed, in preparation for the debate, she noticed the great
>double doors slowly open. Buzz words failed her. Could -this- be the
>greatest threat to Cassirer? This shy, lost, man in peasant costume,
>with a mouth full of straw? And remember at this stage how Heidegger
>declared that he broke with the vocabulary of all the schools of
>philosophy. Maybe it is not until his late philosophy that he is out of
>philosophically schooled vocabulary into the language of the everyday.
>But what has happened to us with our torrent of Heideggerianisms? Why is
>it that this arcane language that we buzz with, trips off the tongue so
>easily, that becomes so familiar and naturalized, such that words like
>'mind your head' have no place?
one day cassirer was walking down a street and he was stopped,
greeted by a student.
the student posed for him a question.
cassirer collapsed dead in his arms.
what was the question?
was it cassirer?
i think so.
>The point for now is this - How do we do some real work with words? When
>we are wheeling and dealing with Heideggerean jargon, has this vocabulary
>displaced itself into a frictionless space (Kant's watchword), or language
>that has gone on holiday (Wittgenstein's watchword), a vocabulary that
>sounds heavenly but has no earthly ties (Australian sheepfarmer's
>watchword)? Is it what Jacques Lacan points to when he says that in
>order to avoid the chase of signifiers there must be points de capitons
>(upholstery studs)? Henry don't focus on the word 'upholstery' worrying
>about his day job in a furniture store. But the suggestion that for
>signifiers to do anything other than hook on to other signifiers, they
>earth into desire.
Daniel, i've no doubt that they earth into desire;
it is only that, like earth, desire is disappearing,
paradigm is not a lonely technical word...
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---