Michael;
I apprecaite your thoughts and indeed the world of the arts does, it seem,
suffer identical problems with that of philosophy. I have come to the
conclusion, and tell students, whenever I have them, that writing is always
a process of failure. Such failure of course is (hopefully) part of a path
toward understanding and liberation. But, failing it is. Its almost built
into it, from the first word on a page or the first line spoken on stage,
the failure has already happened. And the suffering must follow. Not to
sound too overly-drammatic, but its a lot of what i think Artaud was
circling.......this terror at the heart of the first question. Was it Bach
who said something about the terror that lies between each note? Anyway,
Ive taught a number of seminars with fellow playwright Murray Mednick, and
the central issue of the last several has been just this. Of course such
notions run counter to the prevailing ideology of success and that art is
only there to cheer one up or something. Actually, the US thinks art has no
value at all, and that the best one should ask for is to be "entertained"
and distracted. The Greek tradegians figure big in these seminars because of
their understanding (I beleive) of suffering and grace, and how it is always
what is off stage that matters, always the mystery that matters. I wont go
off on one of my tirades here, only I want to say that those of us who are
only beginning our study of H would welcome (if I may speak for all of
them?) suggestions and guidance. From the start of my reading of H I've been
aware of how special his thinking was and been overhwelmed with the
difficulty of engaging it, and god knows there is a lot of stuff written
about him and for begginers it IS hard to tweeze out what is worthwhile. As
for reading H himself, guidance is also welcome. Ive found it very
difficult to piece together the picture as it were, and while flashes of
understanding occure, they dissolve just as quickly. So, please trust that I
at least welcome all the help you feel like giving. regards JS
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Eldred <artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Being
>Cologne, 04-Sep-1999
>
>John,
>
>Thanks for your note. I know it's an impertinence to give advice, so I
excuse
>myself in having followed Rene's lead. It is not meant at all
patronizingly, and
>does not assume a young, impressionable student who needs guidance, but is
more
>a warning because secondary literature can and does ruin readers'
chances -- at
>any age! -- of ever becoming engaged with the thinking at work in a text.
As
>Rene says: "every outside of philosophy is non-philosophical".
>
>Not that that will prevent mountains of books being printed about H. And
the
>authors remain hidden to themselves in what they are doing. They believe
they
>are engaging in philosophy!
>
>Aristotle never wrote anything ABOUT Plato, but engaged with Plato's
thinking,
>with the issues it was struggling with. Hegel never wrote anything about
Kant,
>but struggled with the same questions and mercilessly criticized Kant.
>Heidegger's "Kantbuch" is not a book about Kant. It is the critical
engagement
>in which the issue is differentiated, i.e. carried apart so that each
element
>receives its proper place, which is important, i.e. the
Aus-einander-setzung,
>one of those beautiful, spatial German words. The word 'difference' is
related
>to Auseinandersetzung. In Greek, difference is _diaphora_, that which is
carried
>apart.
>In "Identity and Difference" Heidegger attempts a translation of difference
as
>"Austrag", i.e. carry apart. The English translator of Identity and
Difference
>didn't realize this and wrote "perdurance" instead, whatever that is
supposed to
>mean.
>
>I agree with your remarks about the professional academic. For that reason
one
>has to be careful of the dangers of being misled by 'secondary literature'
which
>is mainly part of an industry, mainly part of the striving to bring oneself
into
>the stand of a status. Although we all know that on some level, it has
rarely
>been made an issue for thinking to date. It is more the stuff of
literature.
>
>Genuine philosophical questioning can only come to grief on the issues it
>engages with. They are far too great and difficult to master them. Such
>engagement can only be supported by a passion which cannot help but
overstep the
>line of what can be kept moderately under control. Something like this, I
>believe, lies behind Aristotle's remark that all philosophers are
melancholics.
>
>Anyway, thinking, when it happens, is a creative activity and this makes
for an
>affinity with the creative people in the arts who know what it means to
fail and
>who are regularly thrown back to make a fresh beginning.
>
>Once again, forgive me for handing out advice. I am also aware of the
cutting
>tone of some of my posts,... I suppose I am convinced it is worth fighting
for
>certain questions to be opened up instead of being smothered by standpoints
or
>comfortable academic debating. In my experience, the 'protocol' of academic
life
>hinders real live questions from emerging. Instead of Auseinandersetzung
there
>is usually petty quarrel, deals, career management, etc.
>
>Best regards,
>Michael
>
>john steppling wrote:
>
>> Greetings Michael;
>> I appreciate the advice as well. I do worry a bit when I read these notes
of
>> yours about some of the assumtions that could be seen to lurk between the
>> lines. Not everyone who aknowleges themselves as non-Heidegerians are at
the
>> same time young and impressionable. Not all are students. I am, for
>> instance, 48, a produced and widely published writer (theatre) and a
>> reciepient of a Rockefeller Fellowship, NEA grants,..well, etc etc
>> etc.........I mention this to point up a bigger issue in a way and that
is
>> how serious study in this culture is seen as either the province of the
>> young University student or the professional academic (who is usually
seen
>> not in pursuit of truth but in search of tenure and publication).
Looking
>> over a lot of postings here and on other lists and I could site you
endless
>> examples of these assumptions. I find it depressing to realize how few
>> adults continue to study and think and create (at least with rigor) and
so
>> its understandable that a novice in one area is going to be thought a
young
>> student. Anyway, there was nothing wrong with your remarks, not really,
and
>> I take your advice to heart, I only felt this question needed commenting
on
>> and had wanted an opportunity to do so for a while......so this was the
>> opportunity. I look forward to more 'advice' and
>> suggestions...........especially for the non-german reader in pursuit of
the
>> early H (per Rene's sggestions)..
>> regards JS
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Eldred <artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 2:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: Philosophy of Being
>>
>
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
