File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9810, message 67


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005