Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:43:43 +0200
Subject: Re: language


Michael Stapels wrote:
Henk, please point me toward English translations where possible. 

I referred to the numbers of the GA because Pete Ferreira's Heidegger
homepage has an excellent survey of the English counterparts, including
the German titles.

Michael:
I was under the impression that you were making a distinction here that
placed poetry-as-listening on one side versus thinking-as-performance on
another.

Heidegger makes distinctions but seldom in a legalistic way. And even if
he did, I would not. I still believe in Bateson's: the division of the
perceived universe into parts and wholes is convenient and may be
necessary, but no necessity determines how it shall be done. If you want
to think with me about the usefulness of a possible distinction, you are
welcome. You are also welcome if you want to place "=" between every X
and Y. There is no necessity to make distinctions.        

Michael:
[...] I'm questioning the conclusion that poetry-as-listening is
mutually exclusive of thinking-as-performing [...].

First, I am suggesting a distinction between listening in the way Glenn
Gould and Dylan Thomas do [sic!] and performing. Some pianists show
themselves to be great performers but poor listeners. The same goes for
poets. Since you are a listener to Glenn Gould, I count on you to
understand the difference. 
Secondly, I am suggesting that - since Heidegger makes a distinction
between true poets and great art on the one and just poetry and art on
the other hand - the  difference might be in the "listening" [entre
parentheses!]. 
I am aware of the fact that Glenn Gould and Dylan Thomas are obviously
doing more than just listening - they are also performing and breathing
and so on. Therefore, you have Bateson on your side if you go on placing
those "=" and missing the point I am trying to make.   

Michael:
You seem to have been saying that poetry is "only" a listening.

Are you sure? Where do I use the word "only"? Or what other word or turn
of phrase do I use that justifies your impression that I actually mean
"only"?
        
Michael:
You made the distinction between poetry as a listening, which then is
made into language as something other than a listening. 

I do make a distinction between poetry and language, and on good
grounds. Language is the House of Being and poets are those who build
this House. Poetizing is _messen_ (measuring, cf. GA07).
  
Michael:
But looking back on why any of it is important, I recall that the point
here was to ask after the difference and/or sameness of poetry, art,
music, and language.

I do not make the same kind of distinction between poetry, art and music
as I do between these three on the one hand and language on the other. I
see the first three as forms of what Heidegger calls authentic building. 

Kindest regards,
Henk




     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---