Heidegger

Even though this is somewhat off the center of
your discussion, I want to connect this question
to the lives and deaths of philosophers, noting
before I begin that Simon Critchley’s recent book
called “Dead Philosophers” is, to use the
vernacular, a series of bubba maises, trying too
hard to be clever.

On the way to Heidegger, I will say that
sometimes the picture of poor Nietzsche
struggling alone in his room for days on end to
write, in between and along with the bouts of
migraine, both head and stomach and other
unbearable pains, lends to his writing a body, if
nothing else. Same with Kant and his compulsive
daily routine, Schopenhauer with his little dog
flirting with the old women at the cafe,
Heraclitus up in the tree etc.

I just finished a semester of more Heidegger–
this time, significant sections of” Being and
Time.” The section I want to talk about is the
one on authenticity and the call of
conscience(#54ff.). I found, reading and
teaching it this time through, to be one of the
most most evocatively true sections of the book.
By this I means that his delineation of the
existentiell “how” of the call of conscience not
only evokes my experience of it, but indeed shows
how that truly evoked existentiell possibility
attests to an authentic potentiality-for-being of
Dasein. Heidegger begins the section thus Gesucht
ist ein eigentliches Seinkoennen des Daseins,
das von diesem selbst in seiner existentiellen
Moeglichkeit besucht wird”(267). (What we are
seeking is an authentic potentiality-for-Being of
Dasein, which will be attested in its
existentielle possibility by Dasein itself(M&R).
This attestation, fully realized I think, makes
good on his claim that true fundamental ontology
is phenomenology.

>But as I read and taught my way (moved the
>students) through this moving evocation of
>conscience and authenticity, I found myself
>imagining a beautiful young man, with sad eyes,
>who truly understood and so was able to so
>evocatively write about (more as poet than
>philosopher)the full extent of human possibility
>and a way of getting there, or better, to be on
>the way.

It was the first time in a while that the man
embodied in the overstuffed frame with the self
satisfied, gloating smile reflecting the full
range of his life experiences had given me any
trouble.

I’ve since gotten out of it, simply by continuing
to read, teach, and think about Heidegger.
Nothing else to be done. Rien á faire.

Regards,

Allen

>Below is some thoughts prompted from a private
>discussion with Michael Pennamacoor:
>
>Not being a Barthian - I am unsympathetic to
>notions of any *death of the author* jive, which
>argues against incorporating the intentions and
>biographical context of an author in any
>interpretation of a text, and says that writing
>and creator are unrelated.
>http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm
>
>
>
>Would to be true to say for example that Verdi
>in attempting to incorporate the stories
>behind such repertory staples as Un ballo in
>maschera, La forza del Destino, Macbeth or Don
>Carlos in operatic form was uninfluenced by the
>real historical protagonists? Is it a true claim
>that the music and librettos of his operatic
>dramas do not incorporate any expressions
>of Verdi’s own experience of life, attending
>operatic performances, as well as being
>influenced by concerts of specifically, German
>music - Italy then under Austrian domination,
>the Italian audience of Nabucco responding with
>nationalistic fervour to the exiled slaves’
>lament for their lost homeland, his unique
>personality, reactions, responses, and
>intentions which would be of interest to modern
>interpreters or students of his work? Can it
>be true that there is there nothing useful or of
>interest in a writer’s own history and that
>which made him what he was, and thus brought
>to his work that would help future commentators
>on works of literature, philosophy and art (and
>even politics) to understand the thrust of the
>piece relevant to its creator’s own specific
>biographical context and the background
>zeitgeist?
>
>Would you say that art in general and its
>outcome and interpretation is unrelated to its
>creator? Does it mean that the authors,
>composers, sculptors and artists of cultural
>works are best left as irrelevant or even
>anonymous, as the biographies and
>intentions/agendas of the creators (if known)
>would not provide anything of additional
>interest, help or assistance in a deeper
>understanding of the work? In other words - is
>it just the painting on the wall - the text on
>the page - the overture on the radio that counts?
>
>For example take the old English folk song Sumer
>Is Icumen which was well ahead of its time both
>musically and libretto-wise.
>
> It is a cannon in four parts sung over a two
>part “foot” or bass line, itself a cannon in two
>parts. This makes the whole song a polyphonic
>composition in six parts at a time when the most
>”advanced” music was in two or three part
>polyphony. This song is remarkable for being
>ahead of its time. The music with performance
>instructions was in a manuscript, originally in
>Reading Abbey. It is the oldest piece of
>six-part polyphonic music extant. Its composer
>is anonymous and it is estimated to date from
>around 1260.
>
>
>Svmer is icumen in
>Lhude sing cuccu!
>Groweþ sed and bloweþ med
>and springþ þe wde nu.
>Sing cuccu!
> Summer is a-coming in
>Loudly sing cuckoo
>Groweth seed and bloweth mead
>and springs the wood anew
>Sing cuckoo! Awe bleteþ after lomb,
>lhouþ after calue cu,
>Bulluc sterteþ, bucke uerteþ.
>Murie sing cuccu!
>Cuccu, cuccu,
>Wel singes þu cuccu.
>ne swik þu nauer nu!
>Sing cuccu nu, Sing cuccu!
> Ewe bleateth aft-er lamb,
>Calf loweth after cow,
>Bullock starteth, buck farteth,
>Merry sing cuckoo!
>Cuckoo, cuckoo!
>Well singest thou cuckoo,
>Nor cease thou never now!
>Sing cuckoo now, Sing cuckoo! Pes
>Sing cuccu, Sing cuccu nu! Foot (or Bass)
>Sing cuckoo, Sing cuckoo now!
>
>Now would it not only be of human interest to
>know who wrote in - and wouldn’t a knowledge of
>its author and something of his history be of
>great help to historians and musicologists with
>an interest in medieval music to know more about
>the personal and cultural influences that came
>to bear on its author?
>Would our attitude towards the piece be any
>different if for example we learned that its
>creator was a lowly peasant - or a high Lord of
>a manor, or a pervert priest or an Italian
>immigrant - or even (*lawks a mussey!) a
>women?
>
>regards,
>
>Jud
>
>*Lauks: i.e., Lawks = Lord! Also lawk-a-daisy
>(me) and as n. = LACK-A-DAISY . lawk-a-mercy
>(-mussy) = Lord have mercy!; also as v. = to cry
>’Lawk-a-mercy!’, and as quasi-adj. (OED)
>
>————————————————————————————————————-
>Reifications - like biological entozoa are gut-enculturations which are not
>necessarily reliant upon nor benignly disposed to the welfare of their hosts.
>————————————————————————————————————–
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Jud Evans.
>
>Private Website:
>http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm
>
>*Common sense and a sense of humour are the same
>thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of
>humour is just common sense, dancing.*
>(William James.)
>
>_______________________________________________
>heidegger mailing list
>heidegger@an-archos.com
>http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/heidegger_an-archos.com
>http://heidegger.an-archos.com/

Posted on Sunday, June 7th, 2009 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback
Tags: Biography»