Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 21:25:06 +0900 From: chris drake <ccdrake-AT-sannet.ne.jp> Subject: Re: Meaning Dear Michael, Jim, Rafael, list, I'm enjoying the ongoing discussion. I'd just like to make a couple of observations and ask a couple of questions. I'd like to return to the question of how to translate the title of "Aus einem Gespraech von der Sprache." Stimulated by the discussion, I'd like to plug "of" just a bit more and see how far it goes. Michael, I agree with you, that "of" isn't perfect in English. But there may be a couple of more points to consider. First, "of" is a way of referring that includes respect, serious attention, and perhaps even a hint of sublimity in some contexts. Think of "Of Mice and Men," "Of Time and the River," or "Of Human Bondage." This mode of reference, while often including an allusion to the past or past works, seems to me at least to be temporally "thick" or "multi-flowed," shall I say. I wonder if it doesn't potentially allow, in English, for a pointing or showing toward a difference, always already understood by English speakers, of the difference between beings and being, although Steinbeck, Wolfe, and Maugham wouldn't have phrased it that way. Second, "of language" in the genitive sense may suggest a branching path leading toward "of language's." Michael, I remember you said something recently (sorry for my poor memory) about being owned or possessed by language. If so, then wouldn't "of language," or even more eccentrically, "of language's," point toward that genitive or possessive sense of being owned by language? "By language" would be too instrumental and destroy the double sense of "of" in English. Reading "Conversation," I get the impression that Heidegger is also using "von" in a genitive sense. Doesn't the sense of "von" as "from" in German also also include a genitive relationship? The reason I return to this small point of translation is, aside from its intrinsic interest, because I've been wondering, stimulated by the current discussion, whether the discussion of language so far hasn't been treating language mainly as an at-hand topic for disquisition. Michael, I appreciate the various sensitive expressions you have been using, and Rafael, I appreciate your mention of the 'poetical' relationship. My question is, how far can we get talking and writing in English about 'the poetical' in modes of English that aren't poetical or that don't performatively open up a place in English where we can be told something "by language." If the answer is not very far, then what path d we take? I realize that by 'the poetical' Heidegger doesn't simply mean poems written in verse, and I'm not trying to suggest that we should all write poems to the list. At the same time, the "pointing" Michael mentions seems to me to require more than more than analyses, descriptions, or declarative sentences that seem to treat language as if it were an at-hand object even while declaring that it isn't. In posing this as a problem, I'm of course not saying our declarative-sentence analyses are unnecessary; they're obviously highly valuable. So, probably prematurely, I wonder whether "of language" might not perform in English a little of the impossible yet already accomplished double relation of "about" and genitive belonging that Heidegger's "von" does with its more common and wide-ranging performance of an impossible convergence or crossing of relationships, a crossing the reader probably only resonates with after reading the whole _of_ (sorry!) "Conversation." By the way, does Heidegger anywhere have a discussion of anything like 'to-wordness' and 'at-wordness'? I'm sorry if this doesn't seem like an interesting question. It does seems especially interesting to me because Heidegger chooses fiction for his mode of writing in "Conversation" and elsewhere. A semantic question: Does the German 'Ding' range over both concrete and abstract objects of attention as well as general situations? I'm trying to follow Heidegger in his discussion with Tezuka when he ignores the meaning of 'koto' as 'Sache' and focuses on 'kotoba' as 'Ding.' Jim, don't worry, it looks like you're off the hook with regard to translating Shuzo Kuki's book on 'iki'! Yesterday I got the latest (May 1998!) issue of 'the Japan Foundation Newsletter,' and it gives a short, non-philosophical description of the following: 'Reflections on Japanese Taste: The Structure of _Iki_,' trans. John Clark (Sydney: Power(sic) Publications), 1997. ISBN 0-909952-30-2. Jim, the authoritarian attitude of some of the 'masters' and disciples in Kyoto was shocking to hear about. If you don't have it already, there's a book on such problems in the Kyoto school: James Heisig and John Maraldo, eds., 'Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, and the Question of Nationalism,' University of Hawaii Pr., 1994. I haven't read much of it yet, but the index has several references to Heidegger. If you've read it, perhaps you could share your opinion. As you know, the mainstream press and academic consensus in Tokyo generally treat the Kyoto 'school' as if it were discredited for its flirtation with nationalism and irrelevant now anyway. Perhaps neither side is doing enough thinking of the essence of language. Keep up your work and don't worry about being a 'dark sheep.' If you still have a copy of the paper (in Japanese?), would you be willing to send me a copy? If you are, I'll send you my address. It was also shocking to hear about the anti-Korean prejudice among some of the Kyoto scholars. It's not only repugnant but also ironic, since, for instance, Japanese 'koto' ('thing [abstract], situation') seems to be cognate with Korean 'kot' (pronounced something like English "caught"), which has the same semantic range. Surely those scholars ought to be underway toward listening for proto-Korean-Japanese resonances in their pre-understood "competence" in Japanese. Thanks for the reference to the translation of Watsuji's 'Ethics.' It's too bad the translation of Watsuji's 'Climate' is out of print, isn't it. It was written as a direct response to Being and Time and tries to explicate a non-human Dasein by way of landscape and climate. Best regards, Chris --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005